Re: [council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

 Thank you for your post.

 I've examined James hybrid proposal, as posted on December 7th, that you have 
referred to. I support it.  It references SG's many times. It does not 
reference Constituencies. Let me reference the post here:

 ?"I would ask Councillors and SG's to consider only those applicants who have 
responded to be eligible for endorsement. Please post your "first pass" list of 
endorsed applicants to the Council list by next Monday".

 With respect, I would ask the CSG to come back with a list of candidates (I 
believe the working number currently is 0-3) with SG endorsement. I object to 
any plan where endorsements of any type relevant to the Council endorsement 
process are made at the Constituency level.

 As I previously mentioned on this matter in my post of 1 December, it is 
important to maintain the balance between the SG's within the GNSO in matters 
of this type. Endorsement at the Constituency level would advantage the views 
of the CSG over all other components of the GNSO. I see no valid reason why the 
CSG alone should have the ability to endorse more applicants than the entire 
CPH.

 In addition, as we have NCSG members who are members solely of the NCSG and 
not of any Constituency they would be disenfranchised by Constituency based 
endorsements. Our NCSG Councillors also have not had time to go back to the 
Executive Committees of our component constituencies to ask for their list of 
endorsees because, as noted, the hybrid plan of 7 December was based upon SG 
endorsements, not those of Constituencies.

 While appreciating the hard work of the ISPC in generating a list of endorsees 
I would ask that, in fairness to the process,  they work within the CSG to 
generate a list that complies with the 7 December SG based proposal.

 Kind Regards,

 Ed Morris

----------------------------------------
 From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 11:12 AM
To: "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@xxxxxx>, "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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:
                Carlos Gutierrez
                        Jonathan Zuck
                        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 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.



----------------------------------------

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.