[council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

the ISPCP constituency is in support for endorsement of the following 
candidates to the CCT-RT:
  1.. Carlos Gutierrez
  2.. Jonathan Zuck
  3.. Waudo Siganga

We’re open to a discussion for finding the appropriate GNSO representation on 
this review team.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Drazek, Keith 
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 6:38 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: [council] RySG Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT

Hi all,

 

The RySG respectfully submits the following 3 candidates for endorsement:

 

·         Jeff Neuman

·         Jordyn Buchanan

·         Nacho Amadoz

 

Thanks and regards,

Keith

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:28 PM
To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Re: RrSG endorsement announcement 

 

Acknowledged, Jennifer.  Thank you.

 

J.

 

From: Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 11:18 
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RrSG endorsement announcement 

 

James and Council Members, 

 

The Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to support the endorsement of the 
following three (3) candidates for the CCT Review Team. 

?         Calvin Brown

?         Gregory DiBiase

?         Ben Anderson

 

Thank you,

Jennifer 

 

Jennifer Gore Standiford

Senior Policy Director

Web.com 

12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West  |  Jacksonville, FL 32258

Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347



 

 

 

 

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:31 PM
To: GNSO Council List
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.