[PC-NCSG] ICANN News Alert -- Draft Report on New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse Available for Public Comment

[avri doria]

Some more info - went to the draft.

BTW: I have been sparsely involved of late.  not as active as perhaps I
should have been lately.  while i was on council i was council liaison
to the group. was never replaced.  in fact at this point the membership
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoccwgdraftteam/4.+Members> is
rather stale.

Some of the specifics

BTW: the draft is on review until 2 April
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-framework-principles-draft-2016-02-22-en

on formation

from 1.0
? Two or more Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees adopt a
single Charter, and are hence known as Chartering Organizations.

from 2.0
1 . Initiation of CCWG ? Two or more Supporting Organization(s) and/or
Advisory Committee(s) make a determination that a CCWG is the proper
vehicle to resolve the issue that has been identified. Some of the
questions that are relevant to make such a determination are: is the
issue within the scope of policy development for a specific SO or within
the specific remit of an SO/AC; does the issue cut across different
SO/ACs; is there broad community interest to engage on this topic; are
there sufficient community and staff resources available to form and
support a CCWG; are the deliverables intended to be submitted to the
ICANN Board for action/consideration.

3.1 Initiation of Cross Community Working Group (CCWG)
1. Deciding whether or not a CCWG is the proper mechanism to address the
issue at hand is the first and most important decision to make in the
CCWG life cycle. The formation and running of a CCWG requires
substantial community as well as staff resources, so due consideration
needs to be given to whether such a mechanism is the most effective and
efficient means to achieve the desired outcome. Questions to consider
include:
o Is the issue within the scope of policy development for a specific SO
or specific remit of an SO/AC? If so, it is likely unsuitable for a CCWG
unless the CCWG is intended to provided input to the applicable SO/AC
process to address the issue.
o Does the issue cut across different SO/ACs?
o Is there broad community interest across SO/ACs to engage on this
topic? o Are there sufficient community and staff resources available to
form and support a CCWG?
o What is the expected outcome? Is the effort expected to produce
recommendations that are intended to be submitted to the ICANN Board for
action/consideration? Are the recommendations intended to be applied to
SO/AC related activities?
o What other alternatives are available to address the issue?

from 3.2

4. Once the drafting of the Charter is completed (see section 3.2 above)
it is submitted to all relevant ICANN SO/ACs for their consideration.
Should there be any concerns regarding the Charter or proposed changes
to the draft Charter, these should be communicated to the initiating
entity (DT or SO or AC) as soon as possible so that any potential
changes can be made and communicated to all SO/ACs expeditiously, to
avoid the need to consider the draft Charter several times (note:
ideally any issues / concerns would have been addressed by the DT as a
result of regular communication between the representatives on the DT
and their respective organizations). In order for the CCWG to be formed,
the same identical Charter must be adopted by at least two SO/ACs who
will become the CCWG Chartering Organizations, each using the normal
adoption process for that organization. If, as part of the adoption
process, a SO or AC does not intend to become a CCWG Chartering
Organization it is strongly advised that the organization expressly
indicates this intention to the other SO/ACs, so as to ensure that all
relevant SO/ACs are noted as having considered participation in the CCWG.

Note contrary to what I say below, it speaks all the way through of
recommendations, but I think that is something that should be mentioned
and changed.  In fact this conversation has brought up all sorts of
questions that should perhaps be considered.  if anyone writes a review
that is.

avri

On 16-Mar-16 18:13, avri doria wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-16 07:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> but I don?t believe that policies should be developed for the current round of new gTLDs outside of the GNSO,
> They would be developing advice, not policy recommendations.
>
> And in the case they did develop anything, I would expect the Board to
> refer it to the GNSO, perhaps as part of a Board issues report request -
> as that would be the proper process, especially under the new
> accountability changes to Articles and Bylaws which be in effect before
> they have any output.  I do not see any way in which it would become
> policy without a GNSO PDP.
>
> I am not believe that there is any reason, precedent or existing
> practice for one SOAC to prevent a CCWG among other SOAC.
>
> I advise against trying to stop some other groups' CCWG.  I do advise
> participating.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus