<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
I’m not sure if we are all on the same page with respect to understand the
“hybrid” process James has suggested on 07 December – and nobody disagreed.
The list the ISPCP provided is our contribution to the “first pass”. All
constituency proposals shall be put to the “resulting list” which shall be the
basis for the discussion later today.
The council has to decide on
- the total number of applications endorsed
- the candidates endorsed.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:01 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Edward Morris ; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; WUKnoben
Subject: Re: [council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
It would be helpful if CSG provided the SG list of 3 before the council
meeting...
Rubens
On Dec 16, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, those are just ISPCP endorsements. CSG needs to coalesce.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Edward Morris
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 5:27 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; WUKnoben
Reply To: egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: re: [council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
Hi Wolf-Ulrich,
Can I assume these three names are being submitted on behalf of the entire
Commercial Stakeholder Group? My understanding is that in accordance with the
GNSO governing structure each SG, not Constituency, was to nominate between
0-3 applicants.
We are still deliberating our selections amongst many fine applicants from
the NonCommercial Stakeholders Group and look forward to communicating our
decision to everyone prior to tomorrow's meeting.
Best,
Ed Morris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 7:37 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
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
<image001.png>
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|