- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
by Christopher Wilkinson July 7, 2019

July 7, 2019

Dear Cyrus Namazi : Having reviewed your draft document, for which I thank you, circulated to the PDP at Marrakech, I would wish to record the following comments, to which I referred, on—line, during the ICANN65 PDP meetings. In general, I find that your document heaves too closely to the idea that the next gTLD Rounds would mirror what your predecessors did in 2012. Whereas, from my point of view the whole point of the current PDP is to find better ways of doing things next time around. This should include greater attention to geographical balance, greater diversity, and ensuring as far as possible that newly delegated gTLDs will actually be used. Words (not 'strings') , in all languages and scripts, are meanings in the public domain, contributing to communications, culture and understanding of the general public, world—wide. Until very recently, there would have been no question of the monopolization of the uses of a word. But now with Generic TLDs, this has become a very real prospect, on-line. The ICANN community has contributed massively to this fact through the single, unique Internet Root. We support the single Root for many reasons, unrelated to the gTLD programme, but we must recognise that ultimately the monopolization of words as gTLDs will undermine global support for the single Root. Accordingly, I consider that the application, delegation and use of words as gTLDs has to be handled - indeed 'regulated' – by ICANN with utmost care, not only for today's users, but also for future users in the long term. Already, our society, politics and economics have given us codes, names and other words which are particularly recognisablel. These are not 'generic' in any meaningful sense; rather the contrary. Returning to your draft document, I would have the following more specific comments: 1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction. On the contrary, some of us have argued for several distinct, specific, windows based on pre-defined categories of TLDs. This option does not appear from your draft. That approach would facilitate encouraging applications from previously under-served categories of applicants and helpl to ensure that evaluators and eventual arbitrators are in fact well-versed in the issues affecting each group of applications. 2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. It would give no time for, and stretch available qualified resources for, qualitative analysis and evaluation of applications, including time for consultation and – should the need arise – for eventual opposition. On the contrary I would strongly recommend a Round that is phased, prioritised and transparent, notably to third partieds. Outsourcing: The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'… But those are precisely the functions that are most important for the credibility and accountability of te whole process, bearing in mind that the characteristics of applications may become far more diverse in several respects, compared with 2012. See also point 1, above. 4, Costs and Application Support: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers. There are other more detailed points arising from your paper which I would gladly discuss with you through the PDP or bilaterally. Meanwhile, I would be glad if your department would take on board the philosophy and key points that I have set out above. With many thanks to you and your colleagues, Regards Christopher Wilkinson > > > From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org>> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM > To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> > Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> > Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs > > Dear Cheryl and Jeff; > We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. > In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. > If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. > For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. > > Sincerely, > > Cyrus Namazi > Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA > > Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 > Skype : cnamazi > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> > > > > The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information seewww.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/><Pre-Engagement Comms Attachment_ Assumptions Paper 6.7.19 (1).pdf>_______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

4 3

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: IRP-IOT selection/ "vetting" process
by Alan Greenberg July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019

If the only candidates for the rebuilt IOT were those endorsed by SO/ACs, I could live with this. But since the BAMC explicitly said that there might be applications without AC/SO endorsement, this becomes more problematic. That being said, the current IOT has been working for several years, and like there being no IRP standing panel yet, this is getting ridiculous! We need to get this done without undue delay, and it is not obvious what other body there exists independent of the Board to do this. We certainly could not wait for a NEW selection committee to be designed and built, and the NomCom, IF it were an option, would have an unreasonable time-line. The current IOT is a possibility, but we really need to protect against it selecting only like-minded people (if that is indeed a possibility). I would suggest that the BAMC in conjunction with the currently active IOT members might be a reasonable group to do the selection, and I would consider giving some sort of veto to the current IOT members (as a group), although simple numbers and the presumed need for a majority to do new selections might provide that automatically. Alan At 05/07/2019 03:00 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: Hi Marita Apologies I received the letter from Leon, as the Chair of the BAMC (Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee) on the 26 June - right in the middle of the Marrakech meeting and it got pushed to the back burner and was then difficult to find because the letter was in an email sent by a staff member. But it is attached below. Personally I can't see the problem of the BAMC selecting the members for the actual committee - they only want a limited sized group and a balance of skills. Others candidates who are proposed by their SO/ACs but not selected as members can remain on the committee as observers (and don't vote). Maureen On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:35 AM Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: There is a fair bit of discussion going on in NCSG re: this letter announcing that the board will vet participation in one of the current accountability mechanisms -- questions are around is this appropriate, is it even legal? Should we be discussing this as well? The letter was sent by Leon as chair of the Board Accountability Cttee to all community leaders. See link below. Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: IRP-IOT selection/ "vetting" process Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:09:39 -0400 From: RaphaÃ«l Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix(a)GMAIL.COM><mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM> Reply-To: RaphaÃ«l Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix(a)GMAIL.COM><mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> Hi all Starting this as a separate thread as I think it is an important discussion to have. As a relative newcomer, I'm mostly interested in knowing how often has the Board undertaken such a vetting process for participation in any form of PDP (taken broadly). That an SO/AC chooses its own people is one thing, but here the Board has, in effect, the last say. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [council] Call for volunteers IRP-IOT and proposed Council endorsement process To: < NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu>> Thanks Rafik I have to say I am stunned by the board decision to be involved in vetting the applicants for IOT membership. This is the group that is going to come up with procedures to hold the board accountable. Board decided to have a say in the selection? This is astonishing. I don't know how the board doesn't see what is wrong with such involvement. If NCSG agrees we need to send a formal letter to the board and remind them what IOT is for! On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi all, For those interested to volunteer to IRP-IOT please review carefully the call here https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> and if you would like to get GNSO council support read the details below. Best regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- Dear Council Members, SG/C Chairs, As you may be aware, the ICANN Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) recently launched a call for volunteers to recompose the Independent Review Process (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>) . The letter also notes that â€˜if any SO/AC wishes to vet candidates through its own candidate selection process, the BAMC welcomes that work, diligence, and indication of support when passing the candidate further into the processâ€™. As during recent discussions, Council members as well as GNSO community members have highlighted the importance of this process and the need for the GNSO to contribute candidates with expertise to this process, Council leadership would like to propose the following steps: Any candidates interested in GNSO Council endorsement should send their Expressions of Interest describing how his or her experience aligns with the skills identified, as well as a commitment to the estimated time demands to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> by Friday 12 July 2019. Council leadership will evaluate the applications against the skills and experience outlined in the call for volunteers (see also below). Council leadership will share with the Council the proposed candidates for GNSO Council endorsement by 17 July 2019 at the latest. Council to consider proposed candidates for endorsement during 18 July 2019 GNSO Council meeting. GNSO Secretariat to submit EOIs of endorsed candidates by 31 July 2019 at the latest. All the EOIs of the candidates that meet the qualifications will be provided to the BAMC for evaluation and identification of new members. If you have any questions or concerns about this proposed process, please let us know as soon as possible. We appreciate that the timeline is short, but we hope this will not prevent you from encouraging members who have the required skills and experience from applying. To be clear, nothing prevents those not seeking GNSO Council endorsement from submitting their applications directly to the BAMC. With best regards, Pam Little and Rafik Dammak, Vice Chairs, GNSO Council On behalf of GNSO Council Leadership >From https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> Skills and Experience Required The IOT has very important work remaining, including the finalization of a set of Updated Supplementary Procedures that will define the conduct of IRPs and assure that the purposes of the IRP are upheld. These Procedures must also align with principles of international arbitration. As a result, those members of our community that you identify and encourage to join the IOT, should have the necessary legal or judicial skills and experience in disputes such as IRPs, arbitrations, or other alternate dispute resolution processes. Specific familiarity with ICANNâ€™s accountability mechanisms is another important skill that we hope to see amongst new members. No single candidate must bring all of this experience, but as we look at the IOT as a whole, we are striving for a variety of experiences that, taken together, make the IOT well-suited to finalize a set of procedures to conduct IRP proceedings. IOT members must also have the time and availability to attend at least a one hour call each week to participate on IOT telephonic meetings, as well as sufficient availability to contribute to the work online. -- Farzaneh _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Content-Type: application/pdf; name="2019-06-26 Leon Sanchez to SOAC-Leaders-Repopulating-IOT.pdf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="2019-06-26 Leon Sanchez to SOAC-Leaders-Repopulating-IOT.pdf" Content-ID: <f_jxqghvkg0> X-Attachment-Id: f_jxqghvkg0 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Fwd: IRP-IOT selection/ "vetting" process
by Marita Moll July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019

There is a fair bit of discussion going on in NCSG re: this letter announcing that the board will vet participation in one of the current accountability mechanisms -- questions are around is this appropriate, is it even legal? Should we be discussing this as well? The letter was sent by Leon as chair of the Board Accountability Cttee to all community leaders. See link below. Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: IRP-IOT selection/ "vetting" process Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:09:39 -0400 From: Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix(a)GMAIL.COM> Reply-To: Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix(a)GMAIL.COM> To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Hi all Starting this as a separate thread as I think it is an important discussion to have. As a relative newcomer, I'm mostly interested in knowing how often has the Board undertaken such a vetting process for participation in any form of PDP (taken broadly). That an SO/AC chooses its own people is one thing, but here the Board has, in effect, the last say. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *farzaneh badii* <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [council] Call for volunteers IRP-IOT and proposed Council endorsement process To: <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu>> Thanks Rafik I have to say I am stunned by the board decision to be involved in vetting the applicants for IOT membership. This is the group that is going to come up with procedures to hold the board accountable. Board decided to have a say in the selection? This is astonishing. I don't know how the board doesn't see what is wrong with such involvement. If NCSG agrees we need to send a formal letter to the board and remind them what IOT is for! On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, For those interested to volunteer to IRP-IOT please review carefully the call here https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> and if you would like to get GNSO council support read the details below. Best regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- Dear Council Members, SG/C Chairs, As you may be aware, the ICANN Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) recently launched a call for volunteers to recompose the Independent Review Process (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>) . The letter also notes that ‘if any SO/AC wishes to vet candidates through its own candidate selection process, the BAMC welcomes that work, diligence, and indication of support when passing the candidate further into the process’. As during recent discussions, Council members as well as GNSO community members have highlighted the importance of this process and the need for the GNSO to contribute candidates with expertise to this process, Council leadership would like to propose the following steps: 1. Any candidates interested in GNSO Council endorsement should send their Expressions of Interest describing how his or her experience aligns with the skills identified, as well as a commitment to the estimated time demands to gnso-secs(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> by Friday 12 July 2019. 2. Council leadership will evaluate the applications against the skills and experience outlined in the call for volunteers (see also below). 3. Council leadership will share with the Council the proposed candidates for GNSO Council endorsement by 17 July 2019 at the latest. 4. Council to consider proposed candidates for endorsement during 18 July 2019 GNSO Council meeting. 5. GNSO Secretariat to submit EOIs of endorsed candidates by 31 July 2019 at the latest. 6. All the EOIs of the candidates that meet the qualifications will be provided to the BAMC for evaluation and identification of new members. If you have any questions or concerns about this proposed process, please let us know as soon as possible. We appreciate that the timeline is short, but we hope this will not prevent you from encouraging members who have the required skills and experience from applying. To be clear, nothing prevents those not seeking GNSO Council endorsement from submitting their applications directly to the BAMC. With best regards, Pam Little and Rafik Dammak, Vice Chairs, GNSO Council On behalf of GNSO Council Leadership From https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-to-siddiqui-et… [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…> *Skills and Experience Required * The IOT has very important work remaining, including the finalization of a set of Updated Supplementary Procedures that will define the conduct of IRPs and assure that the purposes of the IRP are upheld. These Procedures must also align with principles of international arbitration. As a result, those members of our community that you identify and encourage to join the IOT, should have the necessary legal or judicial skills and experience in disputes such as IRPs, arbitrations, or other alternate dispute resolution processes. Specific familiarity with ICANN’s accountability mechanisms is another important skill that we hope to see amongst new members. No single candidate must bring all of this experience, but as we look at the IOT as a whole, we are striving for a variety of experiences that, taken together, make the IOT well-suited to finalize a set of procedures to conduct IRP proceedings. IOT members must also have the time and availability to attend at least a one hour call each week to participate on IOT telephonic meetings, as well as sufficient availability to contribute to the work online. -- Farzaneh

2 2

SAC105: The DNS and the Internet of Things
by Evin Erdogdu July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019

Dear All, As per the AI from ICANN65, please view the paper, "SAC105: The DNS and the Internet of Things" at the below link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-105-en.pdf Kind Regards, Evin

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y6aefcwx The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/jqWjBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/143724036 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Planning for Round Two of New gTLDS is open?
by Carlton Samuels July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

...hmmmm....... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190620_icann_announces_planning_for_round_t… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

11 19

Re: [CPWG] ACTION ITEMS posted | At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call Wednesday, 05 June 2019 at 19:00 UTC
by Silvia Vivanco June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Dear Olivier and CPWG members , The Action Items of today’s call are posted in the relevant action item wiki page for your review and edits as you think appropriate. · Bastiaan Goslings<https://community.icann.org/display/~bastiaan.goslings> volunteered to read the PC "Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System" and draft an outline to be shared at the next call. · Olivier Crepin-Leblond<https://community.icann.org/display/~olivier.crepin-leblond> and Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/display/~jonathan.zuck> will discuss the next steps on the : Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews. · Evin Erdogdu<https://community.icann.org/display/~evin.erdogdu> will check past comments by At-Large on the Process Proposal for Streamlining Organizational Reviews and will add them to the relevant wiki page as reference. · Evin Erdogdu<https://community.icann.org/display/~evin.erdogdu> to post the document "Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data – Phase 2 Input Template, 30 May 2019" in the relevant wiki page. Alan Greenberg<https://community.icann.org/display/~alan.greenberg> Alan to review the EPDP on gTLD document and to include in the Agenda of next CPWG call. · Marita Moll<https://community.icann.org/display/~marita.moll> to raise zoom concerns with the ALAC TTF. · Gisella Gruber<https://community.icann.org/display/~gisella.gruber> to schedule the next CPWG call for next Tuesday 11 at 20:00 UTC. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Action+Items%3A+2019-06-05+Cons… Thank you! Silvia From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM To: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "cpwg(a)icann.org" <cpwg(a)icann.org>, LAC Discuss <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: REMINDER | At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call Wednesday, 05 June 2019 at 19:00 UTC Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 05 June 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yy598zez The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/8YijBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/123927364 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

4 4

GDPR A Year Later in European Jurisdictions
by Carlton Samuels June 25, 2019

June 25, 2019

The Eurobarometer 487a report offers insight on citizen awareness of the GDPR, individuals’ rights under it, their perception of their ability to control their personal data and their sense of and understanding of the enforcement mechanisms and actors. Read it here: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/downl… Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

ACTION/At-Large Members in ICANN65 Talking Points Session
by Evin Erdogdu June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear All, Please view / edit the spreadsheet below for sessions to use the ICANN65 Talking Points: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/1VrnQ7iTjzHASYhxR980Pixf91eQyZb… Thank you, Evin

1 0

Next steps in the evolving MS model
by Marita Moll June 22, 2019

June 22, 2019

Dear CPWG members. I hope some of you were able to attend B. Cute's webinar on Wednesday. As usual, he was quite clear about what he was expecting from us next: 1. Map issues to owners 2. Identify dates by which owners will deliver a solution or approach to resolving the issue 3. Identify resources needed by owner(s) to deliver solutions So, by the time of the meeting in Marrakesh the issue identification part of the exercise will have been completed. At the meeting in Marrakesh, Brian will be looking for everyone's help in mapping issues to owners. e.g. who (Board, SO/ACs, ICANN org, etc) needs to take responsibility for resolving each of the issues which have been identified. This is going to be tough. We all would like someone else to solve the problems, but if we want our issues to be addressed, we will have to step up to the plate and shoulder some of the work. I pointed out, during the webinar, that all of the volunteer communities were already so stretched that they might hesitate to take responsibility for yet another major project. He did say that he was aware of the problem and that participants would get lots of support. I really suggest that there be some advance thought put into which issues at large should take some ownership of. Do we want to have our fingers in all the pies or just a few of them? Where should we concentrate our efforts? It would seem to make sense to come into this meeting with a united point of view This work will go on for the duration of the strategic plan, so it is certain to be a long haul. Marita

11 15