[PC-NCSG] Open Projects

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I?m trying to get the ongoing PC projects listed, and who might be interested in following up on each of them. Here?s what I have so far, but I?d appreciate a heads-up on anything I am missing:

I. Open GNSO Public Comment Periods (PCP):

1. Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-12-16-en) - PCP closes February 1st.
2. Policy and Implementation WG initial report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en) - PCP closes March 3rd.

I?m on both these WGs, and serving as GNSO council liaison to both of them. I?m willing to coordinate/draft responses to both of them.

II. Other Open Public Comment Periods of possible interest:

1. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en) - PCP closes Feb 27th. This is probably something we might find interesting, and may want to write something up on. Anyone on the PC willing to take a lead on it?

III. Board Risk Committee Request for Feedback on Top 5 ICANN Enterprise Risks - Rafik sent an earlier message about this to the PC list, as did Bill to the NCUC list. The deadline to submit feedback is Feb 5th, so a bit pressing.

IV. There are ongoing discussions regarding the ?public interest? context within ICANN:

1. On one hand, there is the review of the PICs and its review process. There seems to be a suggestion to create a working party (I guess similar to that dealing with the GNSO review) to do the work on this, while freezing the new gTLD strings until this issue is resolved. I think it would be great if we could finalise our position on how we believe this should move forward before the Singapore meeting.

2. On the other hand, there is the definition of ?public interest? in the ICANN context, it?s relevance to the ICANN by-laws and the ongoing work of the accountability-CCWG, and how human rights fits into it. The discussion with Fadi in DC seemed promising to me on this, and certainly warrants some kind of follow up. I suggest that we also try to get on top of this prior to the Singapore meeting, and perhaps bring it up during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN board. If we have some solid suggestions by then, then perhaps we can propose to the board how to move forward with this. Anyone care to volunteer for this one?

V. NPOC?s statement to the EU on proposed regulation with regard to domain names and trademarks:

I?m obviously coming back to this quite late, but would appreciate an update from Sam on the aftermath of this. I?m guessing the statement was submitted, but am not sure what was being asked of the NCSG-PC on this topic. It was certainly a great statement on NPOC?s part, but it being an NPOC statement, it didn?t require NCSG endorsement of any kind, and I didn?t get the impression that was being asked for anyway. @Sam: Is there anything NPOC would like us to do about this right now?

I?ll be following up with each of these individually, but would appreciate anything I missed being flagged.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150120/845be35f/attachment.html>