September 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

FW: [council] IRTP Part D PDP Final Report
by Tony Holmes Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

Comments welcome in advance of the LA meeting. Regards Tony From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: 29 September 2014 09:18 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] IRTP Part D PDP Final Report Dear all, Following James' presentation during last week's Council call, please find attached the Final Report of the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-final-25sep14-en.pdf> - containing 18 recommendations. Please note that a motion to approve the Report during the next GNSO Council meeting, to take place during ICANN 51, is also forthcoming. As always, please share and discuss the report with your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to allow for an informed debate in Los Angeles, both on the recommendations and the motion to adopt the Final Report. Many thanks and safe travels to Los Angeles! Best wishes, Lars

1 0

Fw: Call for Observers to Join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
by WUKnoben Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

FYI! As specified, there is no restriction in joining the CCWG as an observer. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 9:31 AM To: mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com ; 'WUKnoben' Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: Call for Observers to Join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en Call for Observers to Join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions In Brief The organizations that have adopted the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions call for observers to join this effort. The primary goal of the CWG is to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System. Participating as observer Participation in the CWG is open to members and observers. In addition to members, who are appointed by the chartering organizations, anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as an observer. Observers are expected to actively participate and attend all meetings. The only difference between a member and an observer is that any consensus calls or formal decisions that may need to be made will be limited to CWG members appointed by the chartering organizations. However, this does not take away that it is the expectation that the CWG will operate as much as possible with the views and consensus support of all participants in mind as the importance of considering all input and views on this important topic is recognized. Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. How to join If you are interested in joining, please contact Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org) or the secretariats of your Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee. All participants (members and observers) will be listed on the CWG's webpage. All observers are also required to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) following the procedures of their chartering organization, or where that is not applicable for observers, the GNSO Procedures should be followed (see https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg) Next steps The CWG is currently in formation. To date, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) have adopted the charter, and are in the process of appointing members. The CWG will have its first meeting (via teleconference) on 6 October at 13.00 UTC, followed by a F2F meeting in Los Angeles during the ICANN meeting (scheduled for Monday 13 October from 12.15 – 13.45 local time (19.15 – 22.45 UTC), with remote participation). Both sessions will be recorded and transcribed. Background The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following principles: a.. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model b.. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS c.. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services d.. Maintain the openness of the Internet. NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. On June 6 ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions." It was determined that Stewardship Transition proposals for each of the IANA functions should be developed by the directly affected communities, the IETF and IAB for IANA functions related to Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System. These efforts will inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility is to develop an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components. Two of IANA's global directly affected communities, the addressing and Internet protocol parameter communities, have responded to the NTIA's announcement and the formation of the ICG, by establishing working groups to provide input on their specific needs and expectations with respect to the IANA Stewardship Transition. This CWG was formed as an integral part of this transition process, and to develop a proposal for the elements of the IANA Stewardship Transition that directly affect the naming community. Further Information a.. Charter of Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions [PDF, 277 KB] b.. CWG Wiki Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Comments of the ISPCP on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process
by WUKnoben Sept. 27, 2014

Sept. 27, 2014

The Internet Services Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP) submits its comments on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process (see attached). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

1 0

Fw: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan
by WUKnoben Sept. 27, 2014

Sept. 27, 2014

Colleagues, as the public comment period on ICANN’s Enhancing Accountability Plan is coming to a close on 27 Sep our constituency has drafted a related comment, see attached. The initiative which lead ICANN to solicit public comment on the matter was based on the joint letter to Fadi signed by all SO/AC/SG/constituency leaders. Consequently there is an effort to provide a joint SO/AC leaders statement, too. I’m convinced that this would add considerable weight to our shared concerns. Please respond immediately whether in principle you are in support of this approach or if there are basic objections. Tony shall then advise the RySG who took a driver seat in this effort whether we’ll join. The latest draft of the RySG comments on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process is also attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

4 8

RV: [council] 9/25/14 ccNSO Council meeting recap
by Novoa, Osvaldo Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

All, I think this might be of interest to you, I think it is quite in line with the RySG and our comments. Best regards, [cid:472212717@25092014-0FB9]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de john(a)crediblecontext.com Enviado el: Jueves, 25 de Septiembre de 2014 14:22 Para: council(a)gnso.icann.org Asunto: [council] 9/25/14 ccNSO Council meeting recap All, The dominant issues for the ccNSO Council this morning were IANA transition, Internet governance and ICANN accountability. On the transition, ccNSO Chair Byron Holland reported on the letter he co-signed with GNSO Council chair Jonathan Robinson noting the "unrealistic" deadline set for the process. As you know, there has been much discussion regarding how out-of-synch is the expressed timetable for the transition in 2015 with the loud, messy and slow strength of the bottom-up, consensus-driven decision-making model of the multi-stakeholder community. On Internet governance, the ccNSO Council adopted the charter for the cross-community Working group on Internet Governance. And, on ICANN accountability, a statement was adopted that aligns with the broader community. I have cut-and-pasted the statement with my own highlights at the bottom of this email. Cheers, Berard ccNSO Council Submission Enhancement ICANN's Accountability Process 25 September 2014 The ccNSO Council welcomes ICANN's decision to conduct a public consultation on the proposed "Enhancing Accountability" process and appreciates the responses to various questions posed by the community. As we have previously stated, improved accountability is both a means and a prerequisite for ICANN to achieve its 2016-2020 strategic vision statement, to "enable ICANN to be trusted by all stakeholders." It goes without saying that any process intended to enhance and reinforce trust must itself be trusted. Over time and through experience, ICANN stakeholders have come to trust the crosscommunity working group (CCWG) process. Having participated in and listened carefully to the exchange of views between ICANN staff and the SO/AC/SGs on this point over the past several weeks, the ccNSO Council is not persuaded that the "community working group" proposed by ICANN improves upon or offers any benefits or advantages over the trusted CCWG model. The main argument for creating the "community working group" appears to be ensuring the inclusion of persons in the process, who consider themselves either not affiliated with a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee or a "newcomer". Serious thought needs to be given to how to enable these persons to engage in the process as a whole effectively and in a way that does not undermine the existing engagement structure. Accordingly, we call on the staff and board to endorse the creation of a standard CCWG as the locus for bottomup, multistakeholder development of mechanism to enhance ICANN's accountability. As a standard CCWG, participating SO/AC/SGs should be charged with developing the group's charter, including the scope of its responsibility. Consistent with the NetMundial conclusions, the goal of the Enhancing Accountability process should be to ensure that a system of checks and balances is in place to ensure that ICANN operates in accordance with an agreed set of principles and that meaningful redress is available to those who are harmed by ICANN actions or inactions in contravention of those principles. The CCWG should have full authority to explore and recommend approaches to achieve that goal. The CCWG should have authority to determine the size and structure of the group, as well as its working methodology. Given the importance of the work to be undertaken and the need to work to deadline, the ccNSO believes that ICANN should provide support for an independent secretariat, including a non-voting CCWG chair. It is also the view of the Council that the CCWG should select the Chair, who should have demonstrated skills and experience in chairing. Ideally, the CCWG itself should be responsible for selecting, through an open nomination process, non-voting advisors with predefined expertise ("Accountability Advisors"). In the interests of time, however, we acknowledge the potential utility in kicking off the selection process before the CCWG is set up. ICANN could usefully identify a pool of experts, among which the CCWG could select its Advisors, as soon as the CCWG is set up. The ccNSO Council also believes that the paramount concern should be to look for independent experts with a proven track record in their area of expertise. In this context we urge ICANN to reconsider its proposal not to compensate the Accountability Advisors. Under the circumstances, the ccNSO agrees that smaller subgroups consisting of members identified by the SO/AC/SGs and the Accountability Advisors could be formed within the CCWG in order to organize and deliver research and expert advice needed by the CCWG, as well as interface more intensely with ICANN and its counsel on accountability mechanisms recommended by the CCWG, or liaise with the IANA Transition working group, etc. The ccNSO has previously stated that adequate accountability mechanisms relative to the IANA Stewardship Transition must be in place at the time of the IANA transition in one year from now. We have also recognized that the potential recommendations and mechanisms to enhance ICANN's accountability may be broader i.e. not limited to accountability mechanisms related to the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and it may take time to considerable time to implement all of these recommendations and mechanisms. Accordingly, we also recommend that the CCWG and any coordinating body should work closely with ICANN to identify those mechanisms that must be in place for a successful IANA Stewardship Transition and to prioritize the implementation of those mechanisms. In addition the CCWG and any coordinating body should also agree on a timeline for full implementation, which may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition. We understand that the ICANN Board must reach agreement on the process it will use to consider and act on recommendations developed through this process. The community has expressed a strong preference to have a clearly defined process, including dialogue and consultation with the community before any recommendation is rejected. The ccNSO Council believes that the presumption should be that community recommendations will be accepted absent a compelling reason for rejection. We urge the Board to develop and publish for public comment its proposed methodology for considering and acting on accountability-related recommendations in the very near term, in any case before the process has commenced fully. As a suggestion the Board may look at the processes and mechanisms used to consider and act upon policy recommendations developed through the policy development processes of the Supporting Organizations and defined through the ICANN Bylaws ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

GNSO Review: 360 Assessment
by WUKnoben Sept. 24, 2014

Sept. 24, 2014

FYI, the survey has been extended to 17 October only. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Matt Ashtiani Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:22 AM To: gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] UPDATE: 360 Assessment Dear All, CALL TO ACTION Please be sure to participate in the 360 Assessment and make your voice heard! If you have already participated, please encourage others to do so. Please note, the survey is available in all UN Languages and has been extended to 17-October-2014 23:59 UTC. RECENT AND UPCOMING OUTREACH ACTIVITIES As we continue our efforts to ensure that a diverse and representative group of people take the survey, the following outreach activities have occurred or are in planning: a.. The Review has been extended through the LA Meeting, it will now close on 17-October-2014 23:59 UTC; b.. We continue to tweet and post to FaceBook regularly in all UN languages; c.. All Policy Staff leads have been contacted and asked if their respective groups would like an update on the Review during the Los Angeles meeting. Presently, three groups would like an update on the Review while in Los Angeles (At-Large, ISPCP, RrSG), but others are in communication; d.. Regional Vice Presidents have been contacted and asked to spread the world in their Regions; and e.. Staff continue to work with the Communications Department on additional means to spreading the word. If there are any additional outreach efforts that the Working Party would like to engage in, please let me know and I will be happy to follow up. CURRENT SURVEY PROGRESS Please find attached some charts regarding the progress of the 360 Assessment. The following analysis has been provided by Westlake. a.. 132 surveys have been started with 76 completed it; b.. 8 out of 20 Working Party members have taken the survey, all 8 completed the survey; c.. 4 GAC members have taken the survey, 2 have completed it; d.. 3 ccNSO members have taken the survey, 2 have completed it; e.. 7 Board members have taken the survey, 5 have completed complete it; and f.. 2 SSAC members have taken the survey, 1 has completed it. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA

1 0

Fw: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Only 7 of 20 members of this Working Party have completed the 360 survey
by WUKnoben Sept. 17, 2014

Sept. 17, 2014

Guys, have a look to this. Our constituency seems to hold the backmarker. For those who did not yet test the assessment: please invest 30 mins of your (business) life to go through. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:48 PM To: mailto:jwolfe@wolfedomain.com ; gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] RE: Only 7 of 20 members of this Working Party have completed the 360 survey Hi all, To follow up on Jen’s reminder, the 360 Assessment will remain live until 23 September 2014 23:59 UTC. Next: · Westlake Governance will launch a short supplementary assessment focused on Working Groups – announcement will be circulated next week. · Interview plans are being made to take place during LA meeting and via telephone calls. This topic will be discussed at tomorrow’s call. · LA session of the GNSO Review Working Party is scheduled for Sunday, 12 October 17:30-18:45 – please reserve this time and calendar invites will follow. 360 Assessment Response Update – as of 16 September Attached (and below) is the latest update on 360 Assessment responses. At Chuck’s request, we’ve added an indication of responders by stakeholder group and constituency, based on whether a responder elects to answer the set of questions pertaining to that stakeholder group or constituency. Here is the graphic that depicts that. We look forward to the call tomorrow. Best wishes, Larisa From: owner-gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jen Wolfe Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:02 AM To: gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Only 7 of 20 members of this Working Party have completed the 360 survey Hi everyone, I am looking forward to our call tomorrow for an update on the status of the GNSO Review 360 Assessment and plans for meeting in Los Angeles. Only 7 of the 20 members of our Working Party have completed the survey to date. If you have not completed the survey, please complete it as soon as possible. I have dropped in below the link to the survey. I know all of you are very busy, but also very knowledgeable of ICANN and it really doesn’t take that long to complete the survey. This is also a great opportunity to provide your feedback to the Assessment team and ensure your specific ideas, concerns or voice is heard. Westlake will provide updates on statistics on survey responses tomorrow and if your constituency or stakeholder group is not fully represented, we encourage you to reach out to them directly and encourage participation. I appreciate your time and commitment to the Review Process and look forward to your continuing feedback and input to ensure we receive meaningful data to evaluate in continuing to improve the GNSO. Thanks and I look forward to talking with you tomorrow! Here is the link to the Announcement - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-05-en and direct link to the survey - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GNSOREVIEW360SURVEY. jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm 513.746.2801 IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014 Follow Me: Follow My Blog Domain Names Rewired

1 0

ISPCP informal meeting
by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (via Doodle) Sept. 16, 2014

Sept. 16, 2014

Hallo Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (wuknoben(a)gmail.com) hat Sie zur Doodle-Umfrage "ISPCP informal meeting" eingeladen. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben sagt: maybe a dinner; we could meet in the hotel lobby Jetzt teilnehmen https://doodle.com/64zm3iv2y3tphebq?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_in… Was ist Doodle? Doodle ist ein Webdienst, der Wolf-Ulrich Knoben hilft, ein geeignetes Datum für ein Treffen mit einer Gruppe von Personen zu finden. Mehr über Doodle erfahren (https://doodle.com/main.html?tlink=checkOutLink&tmail=poll_invitecontact_pa…) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sie erhalten diese E-Mail, weil "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" Sie zur Doodle-Umfrage "ISPCP informal meeting" eingeladen hat. ---- Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Zürich

1 0

Fw: [gnso-review-dt] UPDATE: 360 Assessment
by WUKnoben Sept. 3, 2014

Sept. 3, 2014

FYI and active participation! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Matt Ashtiani Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:52 AM To: gnso-review-dt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-review-dt] UPDATE: 360 Assessment Dear All, CALL TO ACTION Please be sure to participate in the 360 Assessment and make your voice heard! If you have already participated, please encourage others to do so. Please note, the survey is now available in all UN Languages. RECENT AND UPCOMING OUTREACH ACTIVITIES As we continue our efforts to ensure that a diverse and representative group of people take the survey, the following outreach activities have occurred or are in planning: a.. We continue to tweet regularly in all UN languages; b.. All Policy Staff leads have been contacted and asked if their respective groups would like an update on the Review during the Los Angeles meeting. Presently, three groups would like an update on the Review while in Los Angeles (At-Large, ISPCP, RrSG), but others are in communication; c.. An official announcement will be sent out 3-Sep-2014 noting the Review extension; and d.. A blog by Jennifer Wolfe will be posted to the ICANN website next week. If there are any additional outreach efforts that the Working Party would like to engage in, please let me know and I will be happy to follow up. CURRENT SURVEY PROGRESS Please find attached some charts regarding the progress of the 360 Assessment. The following analysis has been provided by Westlake. a.. The current response numbers are 81 questionnaires started and 41 completed. Last week, 72 questionnaires were started and 38 were completed. b.. About one third of the responses have been from people self-selected as being affiliated with the GNSO. 20% of responses have a mark of no affiliation, the others are distributed among ALAC, Board, ccNSO, Fellowship, SSAC, and Staff. c.. To date, only approximately 4 Working Party members have completed the survey. Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment Invited: Implementing Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Name Collision Mitigation Framework
by Tony Holmes Sept. 1, 2014

Sept. 1, 2014

Just wanted to make sure everyone has seen this as it’s an important subject for all ISPs. <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-5-2014-08-25-en _____ Public Comment Invited: Implementing Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Name Collision Mitigation Framework 25 August 2014 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 25 August 2014 Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains * Second-Level Domains * Contracted Party Agreements * Intellectual Property Purpose (Brief): ICANN is posting for public comment a paper <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-rpm-25aug14-en.p…> [PDF, 114 KB] discussing various alternatives to providing Rights Protection Mechanisms for second level domain names once they are released for allocation. Consistent with the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul1…> [PDF, 926 KB] approved on 30 July 2014, the Board New gTLD Program Committee directed staff to provide each registry operator a Name Collision Occurrence Assessment <http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/name-collision-ass…> ("Name Collision Assessment"), issued on 4 August 2014. Per the Name Collision Occurrence Assessment, for names included on the SLD Block List of the registry's Alternate Path to Delegation Report and recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse that the registry withheld from allocation during its Sunrise Period or Claims Period, the registry must continue to withhold these names from allocation while ICANN consults with the community. This paper examines operational and other considerations for several possible approaches regarding the appropriate Rights Protection Mechanisms for release of SLD Block List names. Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/name-collision-rpm-2014-08-25-en

1 0