[WP1] Updated analysis of public comments on bringing AoC into the bylaws

Wed Oct 7 01:26:04 UTC 2015

Dear WP1,

*One addition to my earlier message regarding the CCT Review*

It would be helpful for the Board in making its decision on review
recommendations if the CCT Review Team were to classify its recommendations
along the following categories:

o Accept and implement BEFORE the next round of new gTLDs

o Accept and implement in tandem with the next round of new gTLDs

The review team is free to suggest which of their recommendations fit into
each group.  The Board will make its decision based on input from the RT as
well as input from the community and staff.

As a matter of procedure, the Board would ask the Review Team at the
initiation of the CCT review to prepare to advise on the status of each of
its recommendation (i.e., whether they think it is necessary to implement
the recommendation before proceeding with the next round of new gTLDs or in
tandem).  This will provide clarity on what set of recommendations must be
implemented before the next rounds and what set of recommendations has more
flexibility in terms of implementation timeline.

The suggestion to WP1 and CCWG is that any requirement to implement CCT
review recommendations before the next round of new gTLDs distinguish
between the two categories of recommendations in terms of implementation
timeline.

 Best regards,

Rinalia

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Steve and WP1 colleagues,
>
>
>
> I note the concern regarding the Board’s position on the CCT review (as
> expressed in the Board comments on the CCWG’s 2nd Draft Proposal).
>
>
>
> *Please allow me to share some assurances from the Board:*
>
>
>
> -        The Board will complete the CCT review along with several other
> reviews related to the new gTLD program before we decide whether and how to
> move forward with the next round.  (Note: There are a total of nine
> reviews.)
>
>
>
> -        The Board will take into account the recommendations from all of
> these reviews.
>
>
>
> -        Depending on what the recommendations actually are, the Board
> will decide which of the CCT review recommendations must be implemented
> before moving forward with the next round.  It may be appropriate to
> implement some of the recommendations in tandem with moving forward.  It
> all depends on what recommendations emerge from the reviews.
>
>
>
> *The details and basis of the position:*
>
>
>
> (1)  The Board is committed to the implementation of all the AOC reviews
> (including the CCT Review) in a timely manner.
>
> (2)  For any future round of new gTLDs, it is important for the ICANN
> community to agree when ICANN is ready to move forward.  The outcomes of
> the CCT review are expected to be key inputs into the discussion.  The
> outcomes of the CCT review alone, however, should not be the sole
> determinant for moving into the next round.  The GNSO’s policy
> development work on the expansion of the gTLD namespace is a key
> consideration in addition to other reviews.
>
> (3)  There are 9 reviews related to the new gTLD Program scheduled for
> implementation between Q3 2014 and Q2 2017 – one of these reviews is the
> CCT Review.  The Board would not consider initiating the next round of
> new gTLDs without completing all the reviews to learn what improvements are
> necessary for the next round.
>
> (4)  The scope of the CCT review is not limited to the expansion of the
> gTLD namespace.  It may result in complex recommendations that require a
> longer period of time for implementation.  Placing a specific requirement
> in the Bylaws to restrain ICANN from moving forward with future rounds of
> new gTLDs until all CCT review recommendations are implemented does not
> assure alignment with ICANN’s core value of promoting competition in the
> registration of domain names.
>
> (5)  At its recent meeting in Los Angeles, the Board approved the
> following resolutions that affirm what is indicated above:
>
>
>
> Whereas, Board resolution 2012.02.07.05
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2012-02-07-en#4>
>  reaffirmed ICANN's commitment to opening an additional round of the New
> gTLD Program as expeditiously as possible.
>
>
> Whereas, the reviews of the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program are
> currently underway.
>
>
>
> Whereas, the Board encourages stakeholder participation in the bottom-up
> process to review and develop future rounds of the New gTLD Program.
>
>
>
> Resolved (2015.09.28.12), the Board directs ICANN staff to continue with
> the reviews of the New gTLD Program as scheduled, and encourages the
> stakeholder community to participate and support a robust and meaningful
> review process.
>
>
>
> Resolved (2015.09.28.13), the Board will follow the community work with
> interest and will consider guidance on future rounds once the review
> process and potential GNSO policy development process reach a more advanced
> stage.
>
>
>
> I hope the information provided is useful.  In case I am not up at
> 1900UTC (3am for me) for the WP1 call, I wish all of you a good discussion.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Rinalia
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Members of WP1:
>>
>> Attached is an update (v3) of the analysis of public comments on bringing
>> the Affirmation of Commitments into the ICANN bylaws.
>>
>> The update reflects discussion on our Monday call, plus edits from
>> Rinalia, plus my expansion of an issue that was also discussed on Monday’s
>> WP2 call — requiring implementation of review recommendations before
>> opening next round of gTLDs.
>>
>> We are hoping to discuss on second half of today’s WP1 call at 19 UTC
>>
>>
>>>
>>> From: <wp1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter
>>> Date: Monday, October 5, 2015 at 7:03 AM
>>> To: "wp1 at icann.org", ACCT-Staff
>>> Subject: [WP1] WP1 Agenda Items and Volunteer Groups - Updated
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Here is an update to volunteers on analysing the public comments,
>>> followed by outline agendas for our next two calls.
>>>
>>> I noted just now in closing we may need another call to close out this
>>> work. Let me give notice now that if we do, the only window that can
>>> work is *Friday 09 October 2015 at 1730-1930 UTC.* Staff, please send
>>> out a tentative invite to that call window, in case we need it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Our immediate task is to analyse public comments and recommend amended
>>> proposals and/or choices for the CCWG to consider, by 12-Oct. These will be
>>> considered at the CCWG meeting in Dublin on Friday 16 October.
>>>
>>> Within WP1 we have 8 distinct groups working on this public comment
>>> analyses.
>>>
>>> Here are the currently known volunteers. Please advise if you wish to
>>> join in any of the groups.
>>>
>>> *Budget, strat plan, op plan* --> Jonathan Zuck, Cherine Chalaby,
>>>> Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Mary Uduma, Asha Hemrajani
>>>>
>>>> *Standard Bylaws* --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon, Chris Disspain
>>>>
>>>> *Fundamental Bylaws* --> Keith Drazek, James Gannon, Chris Disspain
>>>>
>>>> *Individual Director removal* --> Mike Chartier, Robin Gross, Alan
>>>> Greenberg, Erika Mann, Cherine Chalaby
>>>>
>>>> *Board removal* --> Greg Shatan, Alan Greenberg, George Sadowsky
>>>>
>>>> *AoC* --> Steve DelBianco, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, Alan Greenberg, Rinalia
>>>> Abdul Rahim
>>>>
>>>> *Community forum* --> Jordan Carter, Matthew Shears, Jorge
>>>> Cancio, Gonzalo Navarro
>>>>
>>>> *CMSM* --> Avri Doria, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco, Jorge Cancio,
>>>> Samantha Eisner, Alan Greenberg, Ram Mohan, Kavouss Arasteh
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Here are the tentative agenda items for the coming calls:*
>>>
>>> *WP1 — Tues 6 Oct - 19h-21h UTC*
>>>
>>> * New Public Comment analyses:*
>>>
>>>    - Fundamental Bylaws and Regular Bylaws (Keith)
>>>    - Individual Director Removal (Mike and Robin)
>>>
>>> *Review of previous discussions where required:*
>>>
>>>    - AoC
>>>    - Board Removal
>>>
>>>
>>> *WP1 — Thur 8 Oct - 05h-07h UTC*
>>>
>>>
>>> * New Public Comment analyses: *
>>>
>>>    - Community Forum (Matthew)
>>>    - CMSM (Avri and Robin)
>>>
>>> *Review of previous discussions where required:*
>>>
>>>    - Fundamental and Regular Bylaws
>>>    - Individual Director removal
>>>    - Budget
>>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>> Jordan Carter
>>> Rapporteur, Work Party 1 (Community Empowerment)
>>> Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability (CCWG)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151007/c59c291c/attachment-0001.html>