Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER

["Edward Morris" <emorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Susan.


I agree with much of what you write concerning what should be the primary 
role of the GNSO on the CCT review team. On so many fronts it seems the GNSO 
is supposed to share it’s area of competence with others while maintaining 
a distance from what others see as their areas of responsibility. I applaud 
your determination not to accept that with regards to the CCT.

Where I have problems with your proposal is in it’s attempt to remake the 
internal structure of the GNSO during the nominee selection process in a way 
that does not correspond to it’s current existence. Our House structure 
exists to preserve balances between various interests in the GNSO: 
commercial and noncommercial, contracted parties and non contracted parties, 
registers and registrars. I certainly understand there are those who would 
like to change balances within the GNSO. There are processes and structures 
to do so. Populating the CCT review team should not be one of them.

I fully support the initial proposal, circulated by James most recently on 1 
December. It is based upon our current governing structure, which itself is 
based upon four equal Stakeholder groups. Your proposed revision  would 
distort this balance, most notably that between the commercial and 
noncommercial representative groups and would actually effect how we operate 
internally in the noncommercial world. On something as basic to both our 
missions as Competition, Consumer Choice and Consumer Trust I’d suggest 
that ICANN is best served by preserving the diversity of views our two 
Stakeholder Groups represent as we select our nominees for this important 
review team.

Best,

Ed Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx>
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 23:56:01 +0000
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER

Thanks James for resending.  I missed your initial email.  

I have attached a draft with a few changes we are proposing to the process.  


Since among the SOs and ACs, only the GNSO is responsible for creating gTLD 
policies, we think the CCT Review Team membership should reflect that 
responsibility. Just as we would expect a community team reviewing ccTLDs to 
have a majority of members from the ccNSO, we think a majority of the CCT 
Review Team should be comprised of members from the GNSO community.  

It would be a mistake for the GNSO to apply the previous ATRT endorsement 
process and numbers to the new CCT Review. 

Further, given the range of interests and expertise found in our community, 
we think it is appropriate, and important, to obtain the list of GNSO 
endorsements via the bottom-up process of constituency and contracted party 
stakeholder group nominations.   You will see in the attached draft that  
each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group may endorse 1 
applicant, and one or two additional candidates whom each group could 
support, in the event that the Council chooses to endorse two additional 
applicants to attain our diversity objectives.  

If there is agreement,  when sending our endorsement for these candidates to 
the selectors we think it is important to emphasize, the primary role the 
GNSO has regarding gTLDs, the importance of GNSO-endorsed candidates filling 
a majority of CCT Review Team seats, and our expectation that — in 
populating this community review team — the selectors respect the GNSO's 
role and our applicant endorsements when selecting review team members.  (In 
case you're unaware, for the last AoC Review, the selectors partly ignored 
the GNSO's endorsements, appointing only half the candidates endorsed by the 
GNSO to the ATRT2).

Best, 

Susan 


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 12:30 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fwd: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER


Hi folks -

Just a reminder to please take a look at the revised CCT-RT endorsement 
process (attached), and let me know if you have any questions or concerns.  
Ideally, we should get this finalized in the next day or so to allow the SGs 
to meet & discuss their slate of candidates seeking endorsement.  FOr those 
on the go, the key points are: (a) increasing the GNSO delegation to 8-10, 
and (b) tasking each SG to submit 0-2 candidates for endorsement.

Marika has reached out to her counterpart(s) and asked each candidate to 
respond to the GNSO-specific questions, with candidates given until 7 DEC to 
respond.


Thank you,

J.
____________
James Bladel
GoDaddy

Begin forwarded message:

From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST
To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "McGrady, Paul D." 
<PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER


Colleagues -

Getting caught up on on this thread (in reverse order!) and agree with key 
points raised by Paul, Wolf & Volker.   I concur with Wolf-Ulrich that we 
should shorten the list to preserve the weight & value of GNSO endorsement, 
but to Paul’s point, having a slate of 4 candidates may have covered 
previous RTs, but will not provide sufficient coverage/balance here, as the 
CCT-RT disproportionately results from, and affects, the GNSO Community.  
Off the cuff, the right number of candidates is probably 8-10, which would 
make this RT a bit larger than usual, with the GNSO delegation its largest 
component.

I agree with Marika’s suggestion to reach out to candidates seeking GNSO 
endorsement and ask them to specifically address the GNSO criteria, and that 
we also ask our Liaisons to provide some insights on how the ALAC and ccNSO 
are selecting their candidates.  

I think the draft process and timeline that Wolf posted on 21 NOV (attached 
here) is generally hitting the right deliverables, but I think we need an 
extra couple of days to to finalize the process and allow candidates to 
respond to Marika’s request.  We can then proceed to ask the SGs for their 
endorsed candidates.

With that in mind, please take a look at the draft process (attached),  and 
respond as soon as possible (but definitively by Monday 30 NOV) if they have 
any concerns/objections/edits?  

Thanks—

J.




From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephanie 
Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER

I understand the concerns, in particular since no limit has been preset with 
respect to the review team membership.
 
Can our liaisons – Olivier for ALAC and Patrick for ccNSO – disclose how 
their respective SO is dealing with the question? From the published list of 
applications – maybe it’s not the most recent one - I count 9 ALAC, 3 
ccNSO, 3 GAC, 27 GNSO and 31 Independent. So “dozens” could just come 
from the GNSO.
Limitation seems to me necessary to let the GNSO appear being credible. And 
we should avoid discussions between our groups about which applicant may be 
more appropriate in comparison to others. The SGs/constituencies should be 
given the right to handle this.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 
From: Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:24 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Volker Greimann ; WUKnoben ; Bladel James
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER
 
I share this concern.  This is a very important Review, covering a range of 
topics.  I don't see that many candidates who have expertise in all required 
areas, which is not surprising.  We need to make sure we have enough people, 
to ensure balance across a range of factors, and that the representation of 
interests is fair.  Seems more like 2 per SG to me.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-11-24 9:58, McGrady, Paul D. wrote:
Thanks Volker.  Do we have any information on how many other AC’s and 
SO’s are endorsing?  What I don’t want to see happen is that we put up 4 
everyone else puts up dozens and we end up with 1 in the final result.  
Without information on how many everyone else may endorse, I don’t see how 
we can be confident that our self-limitation will have its intended affect.  
Do we know what everyone else is doing?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Paul D. McGrady Jr.

Partner

Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice

Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703

D: +1 (312) 558-5963

F: +1 (312) 558-5700

Bio | VCard | Email | winston.com



 

 

From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:55 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D.; WUKnoben; Bladel James
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER

 

I think if we cast too broad a net and recommend too many candidates, the 
recommendation of the council will lose its punch. By focussing on a limited 
number of candidates, we truly endorse them.

Having one candidate from each SG makes sense as it ensures all SGs are 
represented.

Best,

Volker

Am 24.11.2015 um 15:44 schrieb McGrady, Paul D.:

Thanks Wolf-Ulrich.  I’d like to understand why we would limit our 
nominations to just one applicant per Stakeholder group for a total of 4 
from the GNSO.  Are the other SOs and ACs adopting the same limitations?  Is 
this an ICANN requirement?  It seems to me that the GNSO will be 
disproportionately affected by the outcomes of the CCT Review, so unless 
self-limiting is required, I guess I don’t see the upside and would prefer 
to endorse as many candidates as possible and just have the various groups 
lobby one level up for their people.  Thanks in advance for your thoughts on 
this!

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

Paul D. McGrady Jr.

Partner

Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice

Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703

D: +1 (312) 558-5963

F: +1 (312) 558-5700

Bio | VCard | Email | winston.com



 

 

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of WUKnoben
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 4:20 AM
To: Bladel James
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Fw: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement 
Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER

 

Hi James,

 

by picking this up: could you please make reference to my email from 21 Nov 
with respect to the process? As time is short – and Thanksgiving is close 
– I wonder whether the council agrees to the process suggested.

 

I’ve already alerted the CSG and am confident to receive some input.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: Marika Konings

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:22 AM

To: Council

Subject: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process 
- DUE 17 DECEMBER

 

For your information.

 

From: <soac-infoalert-bounces@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Charla Shambley 
<charla.shambley@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01
To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx'" <soac-infoalert@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@xxxxxxxxx>, Margie Milam 
<Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 
DECEMBER

 

Dear SO/AC leaders,

 

We are pleased to report that we received 72 applications from individuals 
interested in serving on the next review team under the Affirmation of 
Commitments (AoC) that will examine the impact of new gTLDS in the areas of 
competition, consumer trust and consumer choice (CCT).  Before final 
selection of the CCT Review Team is completed by the ICANN CEO and the GAC 
Chair,  we are seeking endorsements from any SO/AC for those applicants who 
have expressed an interest to serve as their representatives. 

 

If you choose to endorse an applicant, please send your endorsements by 
email to reviews@xxxxxxxxx by  the updated deadline of 17 December at 23:59 
UTC.    

 

In order to help with the endorsement process, below are answers to some 
frequently asked questions:

 

Is there a set allocation for SO/AC representatives?  Under the AoC, there 
is no set allocation per SO/AC or per stakeholder group, nor is there a 
maximum for total size of the review team.  

 

How Many Members Will be on the Review Team?  There is no set number of 
volunteers for the Review Team.  However, keep in mind that the review team 
should be comprised of members that collectively have  expertise covering 
the wide range of topics that are within the mandate of this review team.   
Past AoC review teams were comprised of approximately 16 members.

 

What Were the Criteria for Applicants?  The call for volunteers lists the 
criteria that we were looking for.  The composition should be based on 
several factors, including:

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Subject matter expertise 
–

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->New gTLD application 
process/objections

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Intellectual Property

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Security & Malicious Abuse of the 
DNS

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Competition Issues

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Consumer Protection

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Public Policy Concerns

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Trust in the DNS

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Representation across the 
interested SO/ACs

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Diversity

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·         <!--[endif]-->Regional representation

 

For more information, please see:  
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-11-16-en.


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.




-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
 
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
 
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
 
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu 
 
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
 
--------------------------------------------
 
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
 
Best regards,
 
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
 
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
 
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu 
 
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it 
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
 
 
 

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.