<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process - DUE 17 DECEMBER
Paul and all,
I understand this process not as a selection or elimination rather than a
limitation of endorsements. If the council just shifts all GNSO related
applications with an “endorsed” stamp to the selectors: what is the value of
this role? I’m closer to the SG-nominations based model whereby there is
flexibility with respect to the quantity of candidates: 0-2 seems reasonable.
Anyway we’re poking a little around in the fog regarding the quantity in
relation to other SO/ACs. Unfortunately information from the ALAC- and
ccNSO-liaisons is still missing here.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:47 AM
To: Austin, Donna ; Susan Kawaguchi ; James M. Bladel ; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process
- DUE 17 DECEMBER
Hi all,
We kicked this around in the IPC leadership call today. We just see no upside
in adopting a selection process when an endorsement process has been asked for.
We believe that the Council should endorse as many candidates as it believes
are qualified to do that job. We shouldn’t be in the business of ranking
through elimination (that is for the selectors to do) . Nor do we see any
upside in limiting the number of GNSO candidates that go to the selectors since
the GNSO is the most affected by this process. This is all especially so in a
knowledge-vacuum about what the other SO’s and AC’s may be doing with their
process (for example, if they endorse instead of select through elimination, we
could have a poor showing indeed).
I recommend that we endorse rather than select. We have plenty of information
from each candidate to determine whether or not the candidate is endorsement
worthy.
Best,
Paul
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:19 PM
To: Susan Kawaguchi; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [Soac-infoalert] CCT Review Team Endorsement Process
- DUE 17 DECEMBER
Hi Susan
I agree that the Council should emphasise the primary role the GNSO has
regarding gTLDs and that we believe it is important that GNSO-endorsed
candidates fill a majority of the CCT Review Team seats.
However, I’m not sure I agree with limiting the endorsed candidates to 1 from
each constituency and contracted party stakeholder group, I would rather see
this returned to 0-2 candidates. The reason being that the GNSO Council will
not be endorsing a ‘slate’ of candidates, ie we will not be conducting a
thorough selection process beyond geographic and gender diversity (I don’t
support Stephanie’s notion that the Council review candidates based on
merit--I’m not sure we have the bandwidth or expertise to do so) and as such
we need to provide some flexibility in the number of candidates that have GNSO
endorsement so that we may increase the odds of greater representation. I say
this because I don’t believe ICANN’s CEO or GAC Chair will be under any
obligation to select any candidates endorsed by the GNSO Council, which you
noted was the case for the ATRT 2. Conversely, Fadi and Thomas may decide to
discount candidates that have sought GNSO Council endorsement, but were unable
to do so and we need to account for this scenario as well.
Look forward to hearing from others.
Donna
Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
Follow Neustar: Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2015 3:56 PM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; GNSO Council List
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk
166386 St. IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396
851Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns
bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander SiffrinHandelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 -
Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE
GROUPwww.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 GmbHIm Oberen Werk 166386 St.
IngbertTel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851Email:
vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on
Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander
SiffrinRegistration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.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.
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. 
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|