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

[Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks a lot Steve.

Just an update as the GNSO Council agenda for the 15th of January has been
published today here
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+January+2015>
.
I have a full morning schedule with meetings before our call, so not sure
if I will have enough time to revise before we start. I will do my best.

Thanks,
G.




*Gabriela Szlak *


*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak


La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.
The information in this e-mail is confidential.


2015-01-07 13:24 GMT-03:00 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>  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
> <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-proposed-launch-programs.pdf>
> comments
> <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-CWG-proposal-for-transition-of-naming-related-functions.pdf>
> on the Community WG on Naming-related IANA functions, draft transition
> proposal
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en>.
>   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 comments
> <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-proposed-launch-programs.pdf>
> on proposed launch programs for .MADRID (link
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/madrid-alp-application-2014-11-11-en>)
>    Thanks to Steve Coates for leading this draft.
>
>
>                On 9-Dec we sent a letter
> <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BC-comment-on-safeguards-for-Category-1-gTLDs.pdf>
> to ICANN board in support of ALAC’s call to freeze delegation of new gTLDs
> in regulated industries. On 19-Dec ICANN’s board replied
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-greenberg-19dec14-en.pdf>
> to ALAC, promising engagement but declining to stop the subject TLD
> delegations.
>
>
>   Current ICANN Public Comment page is
> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>
> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>
> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>here
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-comment-2012-02-25-en>.
> 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
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bwg-nomcom-21aug14/pdf1orQuZk6DX.pdf>initial
> comments
> <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-BWG-NomCom-Report-FINAL.pdf>
> 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 (link
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/jobs-renewal-2014-12-09-en>).
> Reply period closes 20-Jan.
>
>
>  3. Release of country and territory names in .BMW and .MINI gTLDs. (link
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en>)
>  Reply period closes 23-Jan.
>
>  4. Translation/transliteration of contact data, PDP Initial report. (link
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en>)
>  Comments due 1-Feb.
>
>  5. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (link
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en>).
>  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 Council*
> 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 (
> CCWG
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home>)
> 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 testing
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Stress+Tests+from+the+Business+Constituency>”.
> The CCWG wiki page is here
> <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability+Home>
> .
>
>
>
> 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 list
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471>.
>
>
>    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 (link
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_transition_proposal_problems/>
> ).
>
>