[council] ISPCP Endorsement Candidates for CCT-RT
Edward Morris
egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Dec 17 12:16:35 UTC 2015
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 at t-online.de>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 11:12 AM
To: "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk at nic.br>, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
Cc: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, council at gnso.icann.org
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 at gnso.icann.org ; 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 at vlaw-dc.com> 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 at gnso.icann.org; WUKnoben
Reply To: egmorris1 at toast.net
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 at t-online.de>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 7:37 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
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 at gnso.icann.org
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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:28 PM
To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Re: RrSG endorsement announcement
Acknowledged, Jennifer. Thank you.
J.
From: Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 11:18
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at godaddy.com>
Date: November 24, 2015 at 18:48:05 CST
To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
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 at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 14:13
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
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 at key-systems.net]
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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Charla Shambley <charla.shambley at icann.org>
Date: Monday 23 November 2015 20:01
To: "mailto:%27soac-infoalert at icann.org'" <soac-infoalert at icann.org>
Cc: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian at icann.org>, Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
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 at icann.org 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 at key-systems.net
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 at key-systems.net
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20151217/8a714013/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list