ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 8-Jan-2015 BC member call

  • To: BC List <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 8-Jan-2015 BC member call
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:24:38 +0000

Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 8-Jan-2015

Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process
Recently filed:

On 22-Dec we filed 
 on the Community WG on Naming-related IANA functions, draft transition 
   Thanks to Aparna Sridhar for leading this draft.  Now waiting on staff 
summary of the comments. (more at the end of this email)

On 24-Dec we filed 
 on proposed launch programs for .MADRID 
    Thanks to Steve Coates for leading this draft.

On 9-Dec we sent a 
 to ICANN board in support of ALAC’s call to freeze delegation of new gTLDs in 
regulated industries. On 19-Dec ICANN’s board 
 to ALAC, promising engagement but declining to stop the subject TLD 

Current ICANN Public Comment page is 
Selected open comment opportunities below:

1. Reply comments on Board Working Group Report for NomCom 
(link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>).  Reply 
period closes 9-Jan-2015.  The BC filed 
 on 13-Nov.    The GNSO Council will submit a reply comment 
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16956.html> based on a 
letter drafted by John Berard.

2. Renewal of .JOBS sponsored TLD registry agreement 
Reply period closes 20-Jan.

3. Release of country and territory names in .BMW and .MINI gTLDs. 
Reply period closes 23-Jan.

4. Translation/transliteration of contact data, PDP Initial report. 
  Comments due 1-Feb.

5. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report 
Comments due 27-Feb.

Note: BC members are encouraged to file their own comments.  The BC selects 
topics based on member interest.

Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO 
Gabi Szlak and Susan Kawaguchi are our Councilors.

Next GNSO Council meeting is 15-Jan-2015, at 18:00 UTC.   
Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm> and 
motions were not yet posted as of 7-Jan.

Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial 
Stakeholders Group (CSG)
Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison.

Intersessional meeting of the GNSO non-contract party house in Washington DC, 
Jan 12-13, 2015. (agenda attached)

BC outreach event in Washington DC, 14-Jan-2015

CCWG on enhancing ICANN Accountability:
As the community demanded, ICANN created a cross-community working group 
 to design accountability enhancement that ICANN needs before NTIA hands-over 
the IANA functions.   David Fares worked on the 
charter<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>, which 
includes "Stress 
  The CCWG wiki page is 

In the CCWG, Steve DelBianco represents the CSG (Commercial Stakeholder Group) 
and was asked to lead Work Area 2 to document accountability suggestions 
generated over last several months.  Steve generated a 

The CCWG is debating accountability enhancements needed BEFORE the IANA 
transition, known as Work Stream 1 (WS1). Steve proposed this rationale to 
designate whether in work stream 1 or 2:
Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be 
in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs.  All other items 
are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force 
implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
Some CCWG members are concerned that ICANN Board would reject significant new 
accountability mechanisms. Steve proposed that the IANA transition creates 
unique leverage over the board, and that we should not miss this opportunity.   
On 6-Dec the CCWG consensus was not to ask the board any formal question at 
this point.

Steve will attend the CCWG face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt Jan 18-20.

CWG on IANA Transition (Naming-related functions)

The CWG is holding an "intensive work weekend" Jan 10-11.

Phil Corwin notes: On substance, there was majority support for most of the 
initial plan but less so for Contract Co. There was broad agreement that the 
plan lacked adequate details, that the process was going too fast, and that it 
was impossible to make a meaningful final judgment until we had the 
interrelated accountability proposal to look at. The CWG is taking an internal 
survey on how to react to the comments and will be working throughout next 
weekend to meet its January 15 deadline for submission to the ICG.      See 
Phil’s recent CircleID post on this topic 

Attachment: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v7.0 6 January2015)(clean).docx
Description: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v7.0 6 January2015)(clean).docx

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy