October 2015 - IPC-GNSO - lists.icann.org

Fwd: IPC Comments on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report
by Greg Shatan Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

Fellow IPC Members, I have attached the comments of the IPC on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report, just submitted to the ICANN Public Comment Forum. Thank you to Kiran Malancharuvil for taking the lead on this comment, to Brian Winterfeldt, David Einhorn, Griffin Barnett, John McElwaine, Micheal Graham, Steve Metalitz and Susan Payne for their work on the comment team, and to Claudio DiGangi, Hector Manoff, Marie-Emmanuelle Haas, Anne Aikman-Scalese and Jeff Neuman for their comments on the list. Chantelle, please post this to the Public Statements section of the IPC website. Greg Shatan IPC President ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 4:16 PM Subject: IPC Comments on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report To: comments-new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-31aug15(a)icann.org Attached please find the Intellectual Property Constituency's comment on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Preliminary Issue Report. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Shatan President, IPC

1 0

IPC CCWG Scorecard (was: Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability)
by Greg Shatan Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

Anne and all, In the interests of time and communication, I've thrown together a quick scorecard based on the list Anne extracted and posted it to Google Drive. With more work, I can make the references to the current CCWG position more specific, but this is my quick and dirty view of the CCWG's progress against our "asks." The link comes with "suggest and comment" rights, so please do. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h89jwkxxsm6YHHl63soQOTuLfvWMqT_wX1M5FFp… I've also attached a Word copy for the Google Drive-challenged. Greg On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Anne, > > That's quite a scorecard. I'll have to think about it. I may turn it > into a chart for easy reading. > > I'd be interested in views from you and Jonathan Zuck, as other IPC folk > most active in the CCWG. > > Greg > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> My understanding of the Chartering Organization approval process is that >> in the CCWG-Accountability Charter, there is a provision contemplating a >> possible Supplemental Report if any recommendation is not wholeheartedly >> approved by a particular Chartering Organization and that the Chartering >> Organizations may be able to make additional recommendations in this >> regard. Is that your understanding? >> >> >> >> I was curious as to what you think about how the items IPC requested in >> public comment in September will be incorporated in the Accountability >> Report. The list from the end of our public comment on the Second Draft >> Report appears below. (At least I think this is the version that was >> filed.) Do you have a sense as to how far we got with these public >> comments? >> >> >> >> “In particular, in its Final Report, the CCWG should incorporate the IPC >> recommendations embodied in the above comments in order to: >> >> (a) confirm that contractual enforcement is a core responsibility within >> the ICANN mission and clarify that such enforcement is consistent with >> ICANN’s “limited technical mission”[1] >> <#150b4e41dcf6f48f_150b4bd6970253f6__ftn1>, >> >> (b) either delete the proposed Bylaws Amendment on Human Rights or >> embrace all Human Rights listed in the UN Convention, >> >> (c) reinstate the requirement to balance Commitments and Core Values, >> >> (d) make certain that AoC Reviews (and particularly the commitment at >> para. 566) are part of the Fundamental Bylaws and make certain all >> constituencies, including the IPC, are directly represented on the Review >> Teams, >> >> (e) clarify that the recommended changes in structure do not affect AoC >> reviews currently in progress, >> >> (f) adjust voting weight in the Single Member Model to more accurately >> reflect community interests, including intellectual property interests, >> >> (g) provide a method for challenging Board decisions even where the >> majority does not support such a challenge, >> >> (h) retain Stress Test 18 regarding GAC consensus advice, >> >> (i) delete Stress Tests 29 and 30 as they are contrary to the concept >> that robust contractual enforcement is a key part of ICANN’s mission, >> >> (j) provide for interim remedies available to the Community pending a >> reconsideration or IRP which suspends implementation by the Board of a >> “captured” policy, and >> >> (k) deal with the possibility that the exercise of a Community Power may >> also be “captured” and provides a remedy for that situation.” >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel* >> >> *Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP* >> >> *One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611* >> >> *(T) 520.629.4428 <520.629.4428> | (F) 520.879.4725 <520.879.4725>* >> >> *AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com <AAikman(a)lrrlaw.com>** | www.LRRLaw.com >> <http://www.lrrlaw.com/>* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* ipc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 6:52 AM >> *To:* IPC-GNSO >> *Subject:* Re: [IPC-GNSO] Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability >> >> >> >> This time, with the attachment. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Attached please find the latest version of the timeline for the >> completion of the CCWG's work. >> >> >> >> We should consider how we will work within these timelines, both with >> regard to providing public comments and with regard to our role in the >> Chartering Organization approval process within the GNSO. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> [1] <#150b4e41dcf6f48f_150b4bd6970253f6__ftnref1> Alternatively, the >> CCWG could simply eliminate references to the “limited technical mission” >> of ICANN. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this >> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or >> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended >> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you >> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by >> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any >> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and >> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. >> > >

1 0

Updated Timeline for CCWG-Accountability
by Greg Shatan Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

All, Attached please find the latest version of the timeline for the completion of the CCWG's work. We should consider how we will work within these timelines, both with regard to providing public comments and with regard to our role in the Chartering Organization approval process within the GNSO. Greg

3 5

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs Statement
by Greg Shatan Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:47 PM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs Statement To: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Hi everyone, Please find below the statement presented by León at today’s Public Forum on the progress made on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process during ICANN54 in Dublin. Thanks, Hillary Original posting: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-… Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability ICANN54 co-Chairs' Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/cross-community-working-group-on-enhancing-…> *Presented at ICANN54 Public Forum by León Sanchez:* Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met in Dublin, Ireland from 16-22 October 2015 at ICANN54. Over the past seven days, the CCWG-Accountability has held more than 25 hours of formal meetings, with additional discussions taking place in various SO-AC-led sessions, in the hallways and often times over meals and drinks. After some voiced concerns with the speed of progress leading into Dublin, we as co-Chairs, called on the community for full mobilization and reinvigorated dedication to making measurable progress over the week in Dublin. We are extremely pleased to announce that the community tackled this challenge head on and succeeded. In what the group has coined “an environment of collaboration,” CCWG-Accountability members, participants, ICANN Board Directors, external Advisors, legal counsel and interested observers came together to identify outstanding issues in the 2nd Draft Report and moved towards consensus on solutions. A summary of key decisions and agreed-upon next steps are outlined below: *Sole Designator as Reference for Enforcement * The group reached broad agreement to move forward with the Sole Designator as the new reference enforcement model for the next draft proposal. The group will next attempt to finalize "patching" the model to alleviate any outstanding concerns on their next draft proposal. *Decision-Making Model* The group begun defining a consensus based decision-making model, which includes a community consultation period. Discussions on the topic were informed by concerns raised in the Public Comment on the 2nd Draft Report about unintended concentrations of power. *Independent Review Process* The group confirmed support for the proposed IRP enhancements, and is now moving into the implementation phase. To spearhead this phase, a drafting sub-group with expert support will be constructed to develop and draft bylaws and detailed operating procedures. *Community Power: Review/Reject Budget and Operating Plan* The group has identified a balanced process and approach for the One-Year Operating Plan and Budget, which was an outstanding item coming into Dublin. *Community Power: Recall Individual Board Directors* The group confirmed a decision method for removal of a director appointed by the Nominating Committee, and a separate decision method for removal of a director appointed by an Advisory Committee or Supporting Organization. *Mission and Core Values* The group confirmed its support for a clarification of the Mission Statement and articulation of the Commitments and Core Values. An example of a clarification includes ICANN's ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to reasonable checks and balances. *Human Rights* The group reached consensus to include a general human rights commitment into the Bylaws. However, further work is needed on language and has been tasked to the Human Rights Working Party. *Incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws* The group finalized outstanding details of the incorporation of the Affirmation of Commitments Review into the bylaws. There is high confidence that these bylaws are nearly ready for consideration in terms of implementation. *Work Stream 2 * The group adopted a focused list of Work Stream 2 items, with an emphasis on transparency requirements. There was also broad agreement to bring some of these transparency requirements into Work Stream 1 in consideration of the discussions around the Sole Designator enforcement model. Timeline and Next Steps The CCWG-Accountability has had intensive discussions on the group's work plan, anticipated progress and next steps towards finalization. As such, the group has adjusted its timeline in a manner that attempts to balance the various timeline constraints, both inside and outside of the community. While details are still being solidified, the timeline is rigorous, and will likely keep the CCWG-Accountability busy through January. However, the co-Chairs, members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability understand the importance of and will execute an inclusive, open and bottom-up process. The current timeline proposes posting a high-level overview of recommendations and a summary of changes from the 2nd Draft Proposal for a 35-day public comment on 15 November 2015. Alongside the 35-day public comment, the CCWG-Accountability will submit these resources to the Chartering Organizations for initial feedback. The CCWG-Accountability plans to issue a full detailed report, including annexes and in-depth documentation, mid-way into the public comment period for roughly 20 days of consultation. After synthesis of the comments received, and assuming no major changes, the group currently projects submission of Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the ICANN Board in late January 2016. We sincerely thank the community for their dedication to our unprecedented goal. We'd like to give special recognition to the GAC, ALAC, ASO and SSAC for their comments on our proposal while in Dublin. In addition, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, Advisors and independent counsel who put in a tremendous effort this past week. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and the deepest recognition. *CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs* Thomas Rickert Leon Sanchez Mathieu Weill -- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement from the operational communities at the ICANN Public Forum
by Greg Shatan Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:28 PM Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Statement from the operational communities at the ICANN Public Forum To: "cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> Dear all, Please find below the statement made by Lise at the ICANN Public Forum. She was joined at the microphone by the leaders from the other operational communities. As part of the IANA Stewardship transition process, each Operational Community—protocol parameters, numbers, names — has been working to develop their proposals and to plan for the transition. But there are some areas where we have had to coordinate. For instance, the communities have worked together in the area of IPR for IANA Trademark and "IANA.ORG" domain. I want to convey a message from the all chairs of the IANA Stewardship Transition working groups from the names, the protocols and the numbers: we have collaborated and continue to collaborate to ensure the consistency of the transition effort. We are now nearing the implementation stage of the effort, and the three operational communities are committed to working together to develop an implementation plan based on our proposal for the IPR, and any other areas in the proposal which need coordination among the three operational communities. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

1 0

Vice chair
by McGrady, Paul D. Oct. 22, 2015

Oct. 22, 2015

IPC Leadership: What's the plan for our (interim?) vice chair? No doubt it will come up in today's wrap up session. Sent from my iPhone 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.

6 7

Fwd: [Internet Policy] FYI - Two WSIS+10-related blog posts from Internet Society's Constance Bommelaer and Raul Echeberria
by Greg Shatan Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

All, More from WSIS+10. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan York <york(a)isoc.org> Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:53 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] FYI - Two WSIS+10-related blog posts from Internet Society's Constance Bommelaer and Raul Echeberria To: Internet Policy External <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Internet-policy subscribers, FYI, we've published two blog posts today from Constance Bommelaer and Raul Echeberria related to the WSIS+10 consultations this week. In Constance's case it is the statement she gave on Monday at the UNGA. For Raul it is a post about human rights and trust. The links to the posts as well as social sharing links are included below. Regards, Dan ---- Internet Society Statement At UN WSIS+10 Consultation on 19 October 2015 https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/10/internet-society… https://twitter.com/internetsociety/status/656928822978211840 https://twitter.com/ISOCPolicy/status/656928823590588416 https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/posts/10152963113708239 https://plus.google.com/+InternetSociety/posts/2P8SgdQmk8S https://www.reddit.com/r/internetgovernance/comments/3poj54/internet_societ… ---- Human Rights and Trust, two foundations of a people-centered Information Society https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/development-public-policy/2015/10/huma… https://twitter.com/internetsociety/status/656931617529663488 https://twitter.com/ISOCPolicy/status/656931618154659840 https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/posts/10152963125618239 https://plus.google.com/+InternetSociety/posts/DmTR7fs3D2w https://www.reddit.com/r/humanrights/comments/3pokjs/human_rights_and_trust… ---- -- Dan York Senior Content Strategist, Internet Society york(a)isoc.org +1-802-735-1624 Jabber: york(a)jabber.isoc.org Skype: danyork http://twitter.com/danyork http://www.internetsociety.org/ <http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/> _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Report of WSIS+10 review proceedings in New York
by Greg Shatan Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Just in case you thought ICANN was the only major Internet Governance event this week, here is a report from WSIS+10 prepared by the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law School, New Delhi. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:30 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] Report of WSIS+10 review proceedings in New York To: bestbits <bestbits(a)lists.bestbits.net>, governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, wsis10(a)lists.bestbits.net, internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org Dear All, Here are links to CCG's coverage of the WSIS+10 review in New York. Puneeth Nagaraj has been attending on our behalf and has shared/ written up the following: 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of Day 1 <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/2nd-preparatory-meeting-of-wsi…> (Covers EU, US, G77+China and Latin American & Carribean States) 2nd Preparatory Meeting of WSIS+10 Review: Summary of ICT4D Discussions on Day 2 <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/2nd-preparatory-meeting-of-wsi…> (covers South Africa, the EU and the US) Indian government's statements WSIS+10 Zero Draft: Highlights from India’s Statement at the 2nd Preparatory Meeting <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/wsis10-zero-draft-indias-state…> (part 1 of 2) India’s Statements on Day 2 of the 2nd Preparatory Meeting of the WSIS Review <https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/indias-statements-on-day-2-of-…> (part 2 of 2) We hope that this is useful to you and welcome your feedback on how we can improve our reporting. Best, Chinmayi _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

1 0

Document circulated to BC?
by McGrady, Paul D. Oct. 21, 2015

Oct. 21, 2015

Hi all. I understand that a document containing a proposed IPC position on a subject is been circulated to the BC. However, it's not clear to me what the document is. I am sorry if I missed something on the list. If you circulated a document to the BC leadership on any topic, would you please be so kind as to identify to the what that is and who you sent it to? I'd like to be able to answer questions about it, but I'm afraid I don't know what people are referring to. Thanks in advance for your patience! Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone 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.

2 1

FW: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver.
by McGrady, Paul D. Oct. 19, 2015

Oct. 19, 2015

All, please see below for last minute motion by the NCSG. A few questions: 1. Does anyone read this as a muzzling of individual constituencies/SGs? I know that such was the fear but it isn't obvious to me that such is the case; 2. Assuming "no" to the above question, are there any other concerns with this resolution? 3. Assuming "yes" to the above question, should Heather or Brian reach out to Avri to get clarification that this isn't meant to interfere with speech from the constituencies/SG? Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 6:11 PM To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] possible motion - would need to request 10 day waiver. To my fellow council members, I would like to offer one last motion before I end my tenure on the GNSO council. I know I have missed the motion deadline and therefore request consideration for waiver of the 10 day rule for motions, noting that this request is submitted at least 24 hours before the meeting scheduled for 21 October 2015. I also note that I am available to consider any friendly amendments that might be required for acceptance of the resolution that might come based on Stakeholder Group and Constituency consideration of this motion. --- Motion Whereas On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountabilty); On 3 August the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal was initiated, which ended on 12 Septemebr 2015; The CCWG-Accountabilty has analyzed the comments received in the review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference implementation taking into account the concerns expressed in those comments; and The CCWG-Accountabilty is working in a considered and collegial manner to achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability; Acknowledging the superb and continuing leadership of CCWG-Accountabilty by the team which includes the GNSO appointed co-chair Thomas Rickert, to whom we are grateful for his time and consistent effort; Resolved The GNSO reiterates its support for the process that is ongoing in CCWG-Accountability, its commitment to participating in continuing discussions with the goal of finding solution with broad agreement for ICANN accountabity in preparations for IANA transition, and to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before making any resolutions declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes. --- thanks, avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus 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.

5 7