[WP1] Updated analysis of public comments on bringing AoC into the bylaws (version 5)

Sun Oct 11 07:09:08 UTC 2015

Excellent work all, thanks
Jordan

On 10 October 2015 at 21:34, <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Steve and WP1,
>
> My apologies for not being able to be on the call early this morning. I
> have reviewed the recording. Thank you very much for the fair treatment of
> the Board response regarding the CCT Review (in the context of the AOC).
> It is much appreciated.
>
> Look forward to see you and the rest of CCWG in Dublin.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 10, 2015, at 2:51 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> wrote:
>
> Members of WP1:
>
> Attached is an update (v5) of the analysis of public comments on bringing
> the Affirmation of Commitments into the ICANN bylaws.   I believe this is
> our final version and is ready for distribution to full CCWG.
>
> The update reflects discussion on all 3 of our calls this week.  This
> includes changes adopted today, and we have highlighted the proposed
> responses and options for the CCWG to consider.
>
> —Steve
>
>
> From: Steve DelBianco
> Date: Friday, October 9, 2015 at 11:24 AM
> To: "wp1 at icann.org", Jordan Carter
> Cc: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez, Alan Greenberg,
> ACCT-Staff, Thomas Rickert, Becky Burr, Keith Drazek
> Subject: Updated analysis of public comments on bringing AoC into the
> bylaws (version 4)
>
> Members of WP1:
>
> Attached is an update (v4) of the analysis of public comments on bringing
> the Affirmation of Commitments into the ICANN bylaws.
>
> The update reflects discussion on both our calls this week.  This includes
> corrections noted on the last call, plus Kavouss’ request to replace
> personal pronouns, and highlighting the proposed response options for
> analyzing public comments.
>
> We hope to discuss on today’s WP1 call at 17:30 UTC.  We would begin on
> page 5, item 1: requiring implementation of review recommendations before
> opening next round of gTLDs.
>
> Rinalia sent us 2 emails on behalf of the board.  These are shown below,
> and I included her option in the attached doc.
>
>
> From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Updated analysis of public comments on bringing AoC into the
> bylaws
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <AoC - analysis of PC2 v5.docx>
>
> <AoC - analysis of PC2 v5.pdf>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151011/947322a5/attachment.html>