- Npoc-discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Fwd: [global leads] [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
by Olévié Kouami Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Dear all, Again fyi. I was Vice-Chair for this working group, representing te NPOC. Cheers ! -Olévié- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: 2015-08-01 7:19 GMT+01:00 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Fwd: [global leads] [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> [image: ICANN] <https://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en ------------------------------ Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations 31 July 2015 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 31 July 2015 *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#foot1> subject to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c) the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration. *Public Comment Box Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en 1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#note1>These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board. _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert -- Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI Président/CEO de INTIC4DEV (http:www.intic4dev.org) Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT sarl (Editeur de logiciels de gestion SIGE (Syscoa/Ohada) SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( http://www.estetic.tg) ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/) Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society ( www.isoc.org) Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo ICANN - Fellow & Alumni Secrétaire Général du RIK-Togo ( Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Fwd: ICG Seeking Public Input on Key Internet Governance Proposal
by Olévié Kouami Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

Hi ! Please FYI. Cheers! -Olévié- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: 2015-07-31 15:06 GMT+01:00 Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Fwd: ICG Seeking Public Input on Key Internet Governance Proposal To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns < duncan.burns(a)icann.org> <http://icann.org> *News Release* *July 31, 2015* ------------------------------ *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* ICG Seeking Public Input on Key Internet Governance Proposal Public feedback on highly anticipated proposal sought by 8 September The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) today released for public comment the proposal [*IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal* <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop…> [PDF, 2.2 MB]] for the transition of the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions from the U. S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the global multistakeholder community. This presents a seminal opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal as a whole and how it meets the criteria established by NTIA. The ICG is encouraging the public to review the proposal and share their reactions and comments during the public comment period here <https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per…> . Following the opening of the 40-day public comment period, the ICG will host two briefing webinars <https://www.ianacg.org/icg-will-be-hosting-two-webinars-regarding-the-trans…> open to the public on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. The transition of IANA’s stewardship represents an important Internet governance milestone. The proposal for how to carry out the transition is the result of a tremendous undertaking by the global multistakeholder community, including the operational communities with direct operation or service relationships with the IANA functions as well as global business, civil society, governments, and Internet users. These geographically diverse groups came together to work on this process shortly after NTIA announced its intent to transition its stewardship role in March 2014 <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>. The proposal was developed through a transparent community-led process, open to and inclusive of all interested stakeholders. The proposal combines components related to the three categories of IANA functions – domain names, Internet numbering resources, and protocol parameters – each of which have already been thoroughly and publicly vetted. “The dedication that the Internet community has exhibited to the IANA stewardship transition is nothing short of remarkable,” said Alissa Cooper, Chair of the ICG and member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community. “The public comment period presents an opportunity for the public to assess the transition proposal in its entirety and for the ICG to build a public record demonstrating how the proposal meets the expectations set out by the U.S. Government.” “It has been a big undertaking to develop a proposal that meets the criteria set forth by the NTIA,” said Patrik Fältström, Vice Chair of the ICG and Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). “I am confident that after receiving and analyzing the public comments, we will be poised to put this proposal forward to the U.S. Government for review and approval.” “The ICG is looking forward to receiving broad input concerning key questions about the proposal,” said Mohamed El Bashir ( محمد البشير ), Vice Chair of the ICG and member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), “The public’s input is absolutely crucial to this process.” In parallel to the ICG, a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability) was formed to facilitate the process of developing enhancements to ICANN’s accountability in light of the transition away from the U.S. Government. The CCWG-Accountability proposal will be available for public comment on Monday, 3 August. The public should direct comments about the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal to the CCWG-Accountability and comments about the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to the ICG. *Webinar Details & How to Attend* The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect Room <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. If you are interested in attending a webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to the ICG Secretariat and indicate which webinar you would like to attend. Please note that the webinars will be conducted in English and will be live interpreted in the 5 UN languages plus Portuguese. They will also be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and Portuguese and posted. *# # #* For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please see https://www.ianacg.org or https://www.icann.org/stewardship. Media Contacts *Alexandra Dans* Communications Manager, LAC Montevideo, Uruguay *Tel:* +598 95 831 442 *Email:* alexandra.dans(a)icann.org *Brad White* Communications Director, NA Washington, D.C. *Tel:* +1 202-570-7118 *Email:* brad.white(a)icann.org *James Cole* Global Media Coordinator Washington, D.C. *Tel:* +1 202-570-7139 *Email:* james.cole(a)icann.org *Liana Teo* Head of Communications, APAC Singapore *Tel:* +65 6808 6669 *Email:* liana.teo(a)icann.org *Luna Madi* Communications Director, EMEA London, U.K. *Tel:* +44 7780947574 *Email:* luna.madi(a)icann.org About ICANN ICANN's mission is to ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers. ICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. For more information please visit: www.icann.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from ICANN, let us know by clicking here. <http://ICANN.pr-optout.com/OptOut.aspx?523509x19831x105265x1x3785396x24000x…> ICANN, 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 United States _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert -- Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI Président/CEO de INTIC4DEV (http:www.intic4dev.org) Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT sarl (Editeur de logiciels de gestion SIGE (Syscoa/Ohada) SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( http://www.estetic.tg) ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/) Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society ( www.isoc.org) Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo ICANN - Fellow & Alumni Secrétaire Général du RIK-Togo ( Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)

1 0

.AFRICA IRP Declaration – Clearing Up Some Facts
by Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. 31 July 2015 John Jeffrey ICANN's General Counsel & Secretary Recently some questions have been raised regarding our posting of a partially redacted final "Declaration" issued by the Panel in the DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) v. ICANN <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dca-v-icann-2013-12-11-en> independent review process (DCA .AFRICA IRP or IRP) proceedings. Some misinformation and erroneous reporting have framed parts of the discussion. In this blog, I would like to present facts and clarify a number of points, including the reasons for posting a revised version of the Declaration. Why Publish a Redacted Declaration? As background, ICANN has a commitment to the community to post any IRP declaration as soon as reasonably possible. ICANN initially published a redacted version of the IRP Panel's Declaration <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-09jul15-en.pdf> in the DCA .AFRICA IRP on 9 July 2015, within 24 hours of receiving it. Today we are publishing a second version with fewer redactions. So, why are we publishing two versions with different levels of redaction? Specifically, under ICANN's bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#IV>, an IRP Panel may grant requests to keep certain information confidential, such as personally identifiable information, trade secrets, internal correspondence, and correspondence with third parties. In the case of DCA v. ICANN, the IRP Panel determined that: Documents exchanged as confidential by the parties could not be publicly disclosed. Reference to information in these documents in parties' written submissions must be redacted prior to public posting. This is a noted common practice in similar commercial arbitrations and the practice has been adopted in the IRP proceedings so that as much information as possible can be placed in the record for the panel to make its decision. Upon receiving the Declaration from the IRP Panel, we were under an affirmative obligation found in our confidentiality agreement and IRP Panel Procedural Order #4 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/procedural-order-4-25sep14-en.p…> to redact all confidential information exchanged during the IRP proceedings. Immediately upon receipt of the Declaration, our legal counsel began to make obligatory redactions to protect material that the parties had mutually agreed was confidential. This was done in order to meet our obligation to post quickly (within the first business day following receipt of the Declaration). In retrospect, we could have, and should have, noted on the posted document and on website that it contained redactions and explained the reasons for the redactions. For the sake of increased clarity, we have now altered our process for posting IRP declarations. Going forward we will ensure that in addition to marking as "Redacted" each part of the document that is redacted, we will also make clear when posting a declaration whether there are redactions in it, and will state the reasons for the redactions, as we have done in today's posted version. In the case of the DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) v. ICANN <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dca-v-icann-2013-12-11-en> declaration, immediately after the initial posting of the declaration, ICANN's external legal counsel began reviewing each redaction to determine whether it could be released. If the information redacted came from ICANN, we tried to answer several questions -- Did it contain confidential information? Did it contain privileged information? Could the privilege be waived? And, did it contain third party or applicant information that we did not have the right to publish without permission? If the information under question had been requested to be confidential by a party or entity that was providing the information to ICANN, we tried to answer a different set of questions -- Have we gained their permission to publish it? If DCA's information -- has their counsel or DCA lifted their request that it be considered confidential? Will they do so if we ask them to lift confidentiality? If the information in question was from ICANN, we were able to review it very quickly. But for the information supplied by others, we were required to reach out to each of the parties. In the case of DCA, we initially reached out to DCA's lawyers, then when we learned that DCA was no longer represented by legal counsel and we had to reach out to DCA directly. We also sought the release of information that other impacted parties had requested be kept confidential by reaching out directly to each of those involved. The most recent version of the Declaration that we are publishing is a result of our efforts to remove those redactions. There are still some redactions and we have indicated the reasons why they still exist in the revised version. ICANN Staff Assistance on New gTLD Applications Some have viewed the redactions as support for an allegation DCA made during the IRP proceedings that ICANN staff had not treated DCA fairly. Specifically, it has been suggested that staff improperly assisted the African Union Commission (AUC) by helping to ensure that its letter of support for another applicant satisfied the necessary criteria. The DCA IRP Declaration does not address this allegation, but since the allegation is being discussed, it warrants some clarification. If an applicant has applied for a gTLD string that is a geographic name, such as .AFRICA, the applicant must submit documentation of support for, or nonobjection to, its application from the relevant governments or public authorities. The existence of support or nonobjection is the primary objective, and the manner in which it is documented is secondary. ICANN staff has helped many applicants and their supporters understand how to properly document support. Not only did we make a template support letter publicly available to all as part of the New gTLD Program Applicant Guidebook (see Appendix to Module 2 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>), we have answered questions, received through our customer service channel, as to how interested parties can document support for a given gTLD application. In the case of ZA Central Registry, ICANN appropriately assisted the applicant in documenting support from the AUC. Our actions surrounding the .AFRICA applications were not unique, since we assist any applicant who requests assistance, or who needs clarification in learning how best to document support or other matters. We have provided assistance to all applicants regarding their applications to the maximum extent possible. Impact on .AFRICA Delegation Questions have also been raised regarding statements made by DCA about the impact of this decision on the other .AFRICA application. In a statement in recent days, DCA was quoted as saying that: Going forward, we now expect ICANN to accept the binding IRP outcome, refrain from any further plans to delegate .Africa to the ZA Central Registry who should now be removed immediately from the new gTLD program; and cooperate fully with DCA Trust to ensure that the IRP Panel ruling is implemented so that .Africa can be delegated to DotConnectAfrica Trust under a cooperative framework that will satisfy the stipulations of DCA's charitable objectives." [bold emphasis added] The ICANN Board adopted the panel's recommendation <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-16-en> at its Board meeting on 16 July 2015. This decision does not remove the ZA Central Registry from the New gTLD Program, nor is there any part of the Declaration that calls for that result. The impact on ZA Central Registry is that ICANN "will refrain from delegating .AFRICA" pending the outcome of the evaluation process on DCA's application. As called for in the Board resolution, ICANN has "resume[d] the evaluation of DCA's application for .AFRICA. The evaluations will be performed in accordance with processes laid out in the Applicant Guidebook. To summarize, ICANN's actions in redacting parts of the IRP Declaration at the outset were motivated by our obligation to the community to post the document quickly and the competing, yet mandatory obligation, to respect confidential information while being as transparent as possible. Article is available at : https://www.icann.org/news/blog/africa-irp-declaration-clearing-up-some-fac… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/africa-irp-declaration-clearing-up-some-fac…> Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program
by Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-31-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-31-en> US Circuit Court Upholds ICANN's Defense of the New gTLD Program 31 July 2015 Los Angeles, California... The United States' Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of antitrust and other claims against ICANN made by a company called name.space, related to ICANN's new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program, in an opinion published today <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/namespace-ninth-circuit-affirmi…> [PDF, 116 KB]. In 2013, a federal district court dismissed all of name.space's claims, and today the Ninth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in all respects. name.space alleged that ICANN violated the Sherman Act, and various trademark and other laws, in establishing the New gTLD Program and setting the application fee for new gTLD applications at US$185,000. name.space also suggested that ICANN should set aside names found in name.space's “alternative internet.” The plaintiff claimed that the rules and procedures governing the 2012 New gTLD Program Application Round were the result of an illegal conspiracy between ICANN, its board members and domain-name industry insiders, citing U.S. antitrust law (specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act). "We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit agreed with the dismissal of the claims against ICANN in this matter", said John Jeffrey, ICANN's General Counsel and Secretary. "The rules and procedures governing the New gTLD Program were created through a global, inclusive, open and multistakeholder process, following a bottom-up policy development process leading to consensus-based policy recommendations. Accordingly, the Court found it could not "infer an anticompetitive agreement' from the facts presented in this case." In finding in favor of ICANN, the Court determined that “ICANN is not a competitor” in the three relevant markets the plaintiff identified as the basis of its monopolization claim (citing the tests from Section 2 of the Sherman Act): The market to act as a TLD registry; The international market for domain names; The market for blocking or defensive registration services. Finally, the Court also found that name.space's trademark claims were not ripe, and its common law claims did not allege sufficient facts to be able to state a claim against ICANN. ICANN was represented in this matter by Jones Day. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
by Rudi Vansnick Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en> Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations 31 July 2015 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 31 July 2015 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-0… <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…>), which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#foot1>subject to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c>), the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration. Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en> 1 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en#note1>These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun… <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun…>) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

IDN working group - invitation for experts participation
by Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. On behalf of the GNSO Council, I write to draw your attention to the following invitation for the GNSO to appoint three community experts to the new Working Group that is to be formed to review the IDN Guidelines: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en>. The IDN Guidelines govern the implementation of IDNs at the second level by registry operators and are intended to minimize the risk of consumer confusion and cyber-squatting. Under the New gTLD Program, registry operators offering IDNs are contractually bound to follow the Guidelines. Since the Guidelines were last revised in 2011, the ICANN staff in charge of implementing IDNs are convening a Working Group comprising experts from across the ICANN community, viz. ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC. You may recall the recent outreach efforts, by ICANN to the GNSO, requesting a list of issues from the GNSO community for the Working Group to consider. An informal group was formed as a result of this request, comprising Edmon Chung (dotAsia), Dennis Tan Tanaka (Verisign) and Kal Feher (ARI Services). Although the group did not ultimately finalize a list of issues, members of that group may be interested in volunteering for this new Working Group effort. As the GNSO Council is expected to approve the appointment of the three community experts to the new Working Group, I would be grateful if you can reach out to your community and let me know of any qualified members who may be interested in being considered for the appointments. The deadline is August 3rd. Please inform NPOC if you are willing to join the working group based on the criteria defined in the IDN Guidelines document. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

RSVP - WEBINAR: Briefing on 2nd Draft CCWG-Accountability Proposal
by Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. RSVP - WEBINAR: Briefing on 2nd Draft CCWG-Accountability Proposal ICANN News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-30-en <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fnews%2Fannouncem…> WEBINAR: Briefing on 2nd Draft CCWG-Accountability Proposal 30 July 2015 The CCWG-Accountability will be publishing its 2nd draft for 40-day public comment on 3 August 2015. Community feedback is requested on this 2nd draft proposal of proposed enhancements to ICANN's accountability framework that the CCWG-Accountability has identified as essential to happen or be committed to before the IANA Stewardship Transition takes place (Work Stream 1). Community feedback will help the CCWG-Accountability to improve its proposal and carry on with next steps, including Chartering Organizations' endorsement of the CCWG-Accountability output before it is submitted to the ICANN Board during or after ICANN 54 in Dublin in October 2015. In order to brief the community on the contents of their 2nd draft proposal, the CCWG-Accountability Chairs will host two identical briefing webinars on 4 and 7 August at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: 4 August from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC (time zone converter here) 7 August from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC (time zone converter here) Webinars will be conducted in English. Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to acct-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> and indicate: The time at which you would like to attend the webinar; and Your language request (if requested). Live interpretation services are available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian. Please note that the webinars will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be posted on the CCWG-Accountability Wiki here. Further information For further information about the CCWG-Accountability's work, please see https://community.icann.org/x/ogDxAg <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FogDxAg…>. For further information about the related IANA Stewardship Transition, please see https://www.icann.org/stewardship <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fstewardship&usd=…> or https://www.ianacg.org <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ianacg.org&usd=2&usg=AFQjCNG…>. Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

ICANN Quarterly Stakeholder Report – Register for the FY15 Q4 call on 20 August 2015
by Rudi Vansnick (NPOC) July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

The message below is sent to you for your information. If you have any questions, please contact us. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-30-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-07-30-en> ICANN has announced its FY15 Q4 Stakeholder Call, which will take place on 20 August 2015 at 14:00 UTC. The call will cover how ICANN has progressed against its strategic and operating plans for the Quarter ending 30 June 2015 and will review some of the information from the latest KPI Beta Dashboard, anticipated to launch around the same time. Please click here http://goo.gl/forms/4T76Zn1ulT <http://goo.gl/forms/4T76Zn1ulT> to register for the call and to receive joining instructions. If you are unable to access the form, please email us <mailto:icann.communications@icann.org> to register with your full name and an email address to send the joining instructions to. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/> rudi.vansnick(a)npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

1 0

Fwd: [liaison6c] call for comments: Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making
by Olévié Kouami July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: 2015-07-30 13:16 GMT+01:00 Subject: [liaison6c] call for comments: Initial Report on Data & Metrics for Policy Making To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29… Comments close in 39 Days Contents - Brief Overview <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Submit Comment to Forum <comments-data-metrics-29jul15(a)icann.org> - Comments Forum <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-data-metrics-29jul15> - Section I: Description, Explanation & Purpose <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Section II: Background <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Section III: Relevant Resources <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Section IV: Additional Information <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Section V: Reports <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> - Staff Contact <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29…> Brief Overview *Purpose:* This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community input on the Initial Report from the GNSO's Working Group (WG) on possible recommendations for the use of Data and Metrics for Policy Making. The WG's intent is to develop solutions that will improve the way in which consensus policies are developed and help ensure that the most critical registrant, registry, and registrar issues are addressed by evolving the culture to better informed, fact-based policy development and decision-making. *Next Steps:* After close of the public comment period, the WG will review the submitted comments and update the report as agreed upon, thus producing the Final Report for submission to the GNSO Council. Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (WG) is exploring opportunities to review standard methodologies of reporting and metrics that could better inform fact-based policy development and decision making; including how the community can collaborate with Contracted Parties and other service providers in the sharing of metrics and data. The WG's charter contains eight specific questions for the WG, derived from the Final Issue Report that was published in March 2013. The Charter questions cover issues including: - The question “which comes first, policy-process or definitive data describing the problem?” along with suggestions as to how data can be gathered when it has not yet been included in the reporting process. - How processes can be continuously improved, simplified and made more consistent for people wishing to either report a problem or learn about their options when their problem falls outside ICANN policy; - Principles that enhance metrics and data available to better inform the GNSO policy development process; - Improved understanding of the limits of ICANN policies regarding data measurement and tracking and other options to pursue if an issue is not covered by policies that gather data - Mechanisms whereby GNSO working groups can request information (both internal to ICANN or external, including GNSO contracted parties) which support fact-based policy-making; - Mechanisms to ensure appropriate safeguards with regard to the confidentiality of certain types of information; - A framework for distributing information to the GNSO policy-making community with the intent of both informing those groups and providing the ongoing basis for identifying and correcting problem-reporting and data-collection problems; - Any changes needed to incorporate the processes described above into the ongoing Policy Development Process. Opportunities discovered by the group include: - Improve the way in which Consensus Policies are developed and help ensure that the most critical registrant, registry, and registrar issues are addressed - Evolve culture to better informed, fact-based policy development and decision making - Base deliberations and decisions on tangible evidence as opposed to “gut feeling” or anecdotal evidence - Instill notion of continuous improvement to the policy process and effectiveness consensus policy implementations Key Definitions: - *Data*: Individual facts, a set of values, statistics, or items of information - *Metrics*: A set of measurements that help quantify results, which allows for better determination of the level of success against a set of goals The WG’s preliminary recommendations include: - Initiation of a pilot effort whereby the GNSO community at the early stages of the policy process (Issue Identification or Working Groups) can submit tactical sized requests for data and metrics to assist in validation of issues or to better inform policy deliberations - Creation of WG work product templates (Charter, Final Report) including updates to the GNSO’s Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines (WGG) - Update to the Charter template to assist drafting teams in determining key metrics to be used to meet the goals of resolving issues - Updates to the Final Report template with a standard but modifiable recommendation forcing a review of the policies implemented at a future date to determine if it met the stated intent - Creation of a Metrics Request Decision Tree and Request Form to formalize the request process; including inclusion into the WGG. Following analysis of all public comments received, the WG will finalize its recommendations and prepare a Final Report for delivery to the GNSO Council, for its review and action. Section II: Background The 2010 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified the Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting which it described as "need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports." The RAPWG recommended in its Final Report that "the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform problem-reporting and report-tracking processes." The GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to improve the policy development process. The report created by ICANN staff outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics by the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. The GNSO Council subsequently adopted the recommendation to form this non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities for developing reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that could better inform fact-based policy development and decision making. The WG has developed preliminary recommendations for a number of the charter questions it was tasked to address, which are described in its Initial Report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-gnso-data-metrics-policy…> [PDF, 395 KB]. Those recommendations that contain suggested edits to the GNSO's Operating Procedures are also included in a redline version <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-operating-procedures-redli…> [PDF, 768 KB] should the WG's recommendations be adopted by the GNSO Council. Section III: Relevant Resources - Working Group Initial Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-gnso-data-metrics-policy… - Redline of GNSO Operating Procedures: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-operating-procedures-redli… - Working Group Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dmpm-charter-23jan14-en.pdf - DMPM Project Page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/dmpm - DMPM Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/marwg Section IV: Additional Information Note that a few of the WG’s recommendations suggest updates to the GNSO’s Operating Guidelines; specifically Annex 1 "GNSO Working Group Guidelines" and Annex 2 "Policy Development Process Manual”. The recommendations within the Initial Report include the proposed changes or creation of new material. A redline version of GNSO’s Operating Guidelines are included to highlight the possible updates to this document should the GNSO Council adopt the WG’s recommendations. Section V: Reports Staff Contact Steve Chan steve.chan(a)icann.org -- Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI Président/CEO de INTIC4DEV (http:www.intic4dev.org) Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT sarl (Editeur de logiciels de gestion SIGE (Syscoa/Ohada) SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( http://www.estetic.tg) ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/) Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society ( www.isoc.org) Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo ICANN - Fellow & Alumni Secrétaire Général du RIK-Togo ( Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)

1 0

Non-PDP Data & Metrics Policy Making (DMPM) - Public comments Posted
by Olévié Kouami July 30, 2015

July 30, 2015

Dear all, I'm kindly invited you to participate sas possible as you can tho this ongoing process. I am a member of this WG as NPOC representative and so I have the duty to spread the love. Please go through : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29… Thanks to all who contributed and participated in this effort. Warm regards. -- Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI Président/CEO de INTIC4DEV (http:www.intic4dev.org) Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT sarl (Editeur de logiciels de gestion SIGE (Syscoa/Ohada) SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( http://www.estetic.tg) ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et http://www.npoc.org/) Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society ( www.isoc.org) Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo ICANN - Fellow & Alumni Secrétaire Général du RIK-Togo ( Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)

1 0