September 2012 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Announcing that the BC will meet with the 2013 Nominating Committee members and Chair/Chair-Elect in Toronto - date and time to be confirmed/Background Reports for Nominating Committees - 2011, 2010, 2009 [2012 will be available soon]
by Marilyn Cade 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

Dear BC Members The BC will meet with the 2013 Nominating Committee Chair, Chair-Elect, and our own appointees, and hopefully other members of the 2013 NC in Toronto. We are finalizing time slots, but at present, it appears that Monday, during our lunch time session, or Wednesday, during our lunchtime session are the available time slotsfor our full BC members. We will try to confirm one of these asap. In any case, if that does not work, we will work out a different time to interact with the full BC attendance. In the meantime, we all have homework to do on this important topic. For some of our BC members, the NC is perhaps a new item for discussion, so I'll suggest that we use our list to exchange views and perspectives and share information. We are very fortunate that we have several current BC members with past experience on the NC, including: Mike RobertsPhil LodicoMarilyn CadeWaudo SigangaSarah Deutsch[apologies if I have missed anyone]*Some other NC reps no longer are BC members due to having made job changes - Graham Forsyth and Chris Martin, as examples. Another BC rep has retired and declined my efforts to recruit him as 'emeritus' participant. :-) Some of our members are relatively new, and I thought that you might want to have some discussion on a few background items: Possible exchange of view topics: What does the NomCom do? Why is it important? Who appoints the Chair? What reforms were instituted based on its last Review? Did the ATRT affect the NomCom and if so, how? Have those improvements been put in place? What criteria should the NomCom apply for selection of its appointees? Why? What transparency and accountability mechanisms guide the NomCom's work? The BC has just announced its two participants in the 2013 Nominating Committee. While they will carry participation inside the NC, all BC members should be aware of and concernedabout the Nominating Committee's functions. I hope we can demystify what it is, and why it is important to understand for our broader BC membership. Appointees to the NC do not represent a Constituency, but work independently, once appointed. This is a hard, and responsible role for all appointees. The Nominating Committee carries a high degree of responsibility, but at present is still working to implement the recommendations of the ATRT. I want to call all BC members attention to critically important background about past NC reports and bylaw and code of conduct. information about the Nominating Committee -- see below. The 2012 Report is not available, but I have assurances from the 2012 Chair of the NC that it willbe available shortly. I will be sure it is posted to the full BC at that time. While the following are 'required' reading for our two appointees, some of the rest of us will be interested, so I am sharing with all. Other Background Materials: 2011 Report http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/presentation-nomcom-28oct11-en.… 2010 Report http://cartagena39.icann.org/meetings/cartagena2010/presentation-nominating… 2009 Report http://sel.icann.org/meetings/seoul2009/presentation-nomcom-chair-30oct09-e… In addition to the Bylaws and reports listed above, the following documents are reviewed and updated as necessary for each NomCom and may also be useful information. Nominating Committee Procedures http://nomcom.icann.org/procedures-2012.htm Nominating Committee Guidelines http://nomcom.icann.org/guidelines-2012.htm Nominating Committee Code of Conduct http://nomcom.icann.org/conduct-2012.htm Thanks for your ongoing participation in the BC and your participation in the ICANN governance issues. ICANN governance improvements strengthen the BC's ability to encourage others from business to support and engage in ICANN and to participate in the BC. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

3 2

Announcement of BC NomCom representatives to 2013 NomCom
by Marilyn Cade 30 Sep '12

30 Sep '12

Dear BC Members The Nominating Committee for ICANN will be convening in Toronto for the 2013 Nominating Committee (NC) process. The work of the NomComm will be especially time consuming this year, due to the high number of important appointments -- 3 Board members and 2 Councilors to GNSO Council, plus additional ccNSO and ALAC appointees. The ExeComm has conducted a process to determine the two BC representatives to the 2013 NC. We invited self nomination from members who proposed to assume these importantand very time consuming roles for the BC. The ability to fully commit to the online and face to face meeting work of the NC is a high demand on time of our representatives. We were pleased to have 3 self nominees, and the ExComm considered all three nominees with full appreciation that all bring considerable strengths and different aspects of BC expertise and understanding, but also each volunteer brings strengths in interaction within ICANN, and external to ICANN, especiallyin regard to networks that access leaders from developing countries. We took into account the unusually high demands of workload for NC members, due to the number of appointments to be made. The ExComm has made appointments of two BC representatives to the NomCom. For 2013, the BC will be represented by : Waudo Siganga, WITSA: WITSA has a strong and diverse network with over 80 associations; the majority of which are from developing countries. Waudo is an experiencedparticipant in the NomCom for the BC, and we appreciate that he has accepted a second term for 2013. We ask Waudo to carry the responsibility for small and medium enterprizes views,and to ensure that there is broad outreach into developing and emerging economies, with a special focus on awareness about ICANN and the NC. He will carry the Small Business designation to ensure that there is recognition of the concerns of small businesses, whether represented by associations, or independently and will collaborate closely with our second representative. Waudo is the senior executive in the Kenyan Computer Society; and is on several Boards, including AfriICA, and WITSA. Ron Andruff, RNApartners: . Ron will carry the responsibility to represent large businesses and associations that are focused on large businesses, and will be available to collaborate with BC entities related to encouraging awareness and interest by such parties, and far beyond for large business and for associations that specialize in their focus on large/global corporations. Ron is the past CEO of .travel; and the current CEO of RNAPartners; in addition, he has held additional senior leadership positions in business. Ron brings an extensive network within ICANN's structure, and externally with business. Ron has carried several key collaborative leadership roles for the BC as a volunteer, including steering roles within the last GNSO restructuring; playing a leadership role in Charter redrafting. He also carries an additional role within the BC in the STI in the GNSO, where he has demonstrated strong skills of leadership, involvement, and leadership within challenging situations, and has build strong relationships which may be leveraged toward collaboration within the NC. 2013 is a unique challenge for the BC, and the ExComm took all of the challenges that we face to ensure effectiveness within ICANN into account, as well as our other work demands on our members. All candidates brought skills, and capabilities to this appointment, and we once again thank all who submitted their interest statements. I do want, as Chair to note that while the NC is important to ICANN and to the BC, many other issues are vitally important to the BC, and we must be effective on all fronts. The work load that we will carry as the BC going forwardare considerable, and you will see other emails from me, as Chair, with support of the ExCom, asking for more engagement by our BC members on many other fronts of work at ICANN. Time commitments for our NC Reps: The importance of full commitment to attending and fully participating in the NomCom is a significant commitment. That means that our BC reps have to be absent to us, and often to their daily job demands during the NomCom meetings. This is a high bar for our representatives, and we ask that all BC members show their support to our two representatives to 2013, who will be with us in Toronto, and will be joining the 2013 Nominating Committee on our behalf. 2013 appointments/selections that the 2013 Nominating Committee will be responsible for: 3 Board members2 GNSO Council Appointments, including who of these appointees gets to hold voting seats on the GNSO policy CouncilCCNSO appointmentsALAC appointments I am separately circulating a long list of reports and documents that support the work of the Nominating Committee. I know that many of you are strongly interested in the NC work, so am posting it to the full BC list, but the Secretariat will also put the links on the BC WIKI, for later and further reference. [See separate email]. Marilyn Cade, BC ChairOn behalf of the BC ExComm

2 1

Announcement of Strat Plan 2013-2016: If you are interested in joining a small internal BC WG on analyzing the Strat Plan, please send a confirming email to the BC list.
by Marilyn Cade 28 Sep '12

28 Sep '12

Skip to main content ICANN Home Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers About Us News & Press Resources Groups Contact Help Search Google Appliance Enter the terms you wish to search for. You are here NEWS & PRESS › ANNOUNCEMENTS Draft 2013-2016 Strategic Plan for Public Comment 24 September 2012 Strategic Plan (clean version) [PDF, 765 KB] Strategic Plan (redline against previous plan) [PDF, 821 KB] The Draft 2013-2016 Strategic Plan is posted for public comment in accordance with the previously established timeline. (The timeline can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan2013-04jun12-en.htm.) This draft takes into consideration community feedback gathered through consultations and submitted public comments. A Strategic Planning session is scheduled for Toronto that will be organized to take comment on this document and also raise for discussion future strategy formulation as well as a model for ICANN planning and execution. With regard to those last two items, community feed back also indicated that ICANN should undertake a full-scale strategy development for the next planning cycle to cover 3 to 5 years and that there be clear linkage of strategy and execution. Future planning cycle: Focus on developing and implementing a strategy that will: Develop a shared vision and define ICANN's mission, to be followed consistently. Consider environmental forces and new developments that will impact the multi-stakeholder model. Formulate "macro-level" organizational objectives and goals that are clearly derived from ICANN's vision and mission. Linkage of strategy and execution: ICANN's Strategic Plan is linked to the annual Operating Plan and Budget. The Execution Structure is a management system methodology that will ensure that strategy is translated into actionable and measurable goals, programs, projects and activities by: Facilitating understanding of organizational objectives and goals that form the basis of the annual Operating Plan and Budget. Measure effectiveness of initiatives and programs by implementing a management system of clear ownership, timelines, metrics and accountability. These are the critical elements that will ensure that ICANN's execution plan support the vision and mission articulated in the Strategy and that the execution plan is implemented with accountability and transparency. Announcements Public Comment For Journalists Newsletter Correspondence Presentations In Focus Dashboard RSS Feeds RFPs Litigation Independent Review Process Stay Connected News Alerts: HTML Plain Text Newsletter: HTML Plain Text Compliance Newsletter: HTML Plain Text Policy Update: HTML Plain Text Follow us @icann Videos Photos on Flickr Facebook ICANN Blog Community Wiki Planet ICANN RSS Feeds © 2012 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers. Press | Site MapICANN HomeIPv6 ICANN Network Help Acronym Helper

1 0

REMINDER: BC Appointment of Nominating Committee Representatives: Closing today
by Benedetta Rossi 26 Sep '12

26 Sep '12

Dear BC Members, This is a reminder of the currently open BC Appointment of the 2 Nominating Committee representatives closing today. So far I have received 3 nominations. Other members may still be interested in self nominating; if that is the case, please submit your nomination by CoB PST today. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: RFI for URS Providers
by Marilyn Cade 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

Thanks very much for this heads up and good news. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:52:49 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: RFI for URS Providers FYI, yesterday ICANN finally issued a Request for Information (RFI) for potential URS providers. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm> Written responses are required by November 20th, with the aim of announcing one or more selected providers by February 28, 2013. 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 ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

.WTF application
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

It seems this Donuts application has not received nearly as much specific public scrutiny as it perhaps should, given the larger issues around Donuts entire application portfolio. We have filed the following comment today on behalf of the World Trade Center Association, and would appreciate hearing other companies views on this issue, particularly we would like to hear them expressed to ICANNs public comment forum and to GAC representatives --------------------------------- Our law firm represents the World Trade Center Association with respect to ICANN matters. WTCA is a leading trade association in the promotion of international trade. The WTCAs licensed members operate the well-known World Trade Center facilities around the world. The WTCA is a long-established and famous multinational corporation, with more than 40 years of history. It was incorporated in 1969 and officially established in 1970. WTCA is currently comprised of more than 325 licensed members, carrying out business in over 90 countries. WTCA is concerned about the application of a Donuts, Inc. company (Hidden Way, LLC) to register the .WTF gTLD. As typical of the 300+ other applications filed by Donuts companies, this application says very little about Donuts plan for this TLD. In response to Question 18, they only state: Donuts believes in an open Internet and, accordingly, we will encourage inclusiveness in the registration policies for this TLD. In order to avoid harm to legitimate registrants, Donuts will not artificially deny access, on the basis of identity alone (without legal cause), to a TLD that represents a generic form of activity and expression. [¶] WTF is a pop-culture term that is attractive to registrants seeking new avenues for expression on the Internet, and who are perhaps interested in demonstrations of irony, skepticism, humor, and critique. Individuals and groups will register names in .WTF when interested in editorializing, providing input, interacting with other communities, and publishing commentary. >From this it is only clear that the primary purpose of the unrestricted TLD is to refer to the pop-culture term represented by the WTF TLD string What the Fk? Indeed, many people, organizations and governments likely will be asking that question of ICANN, if this TLD application is approved. The common pop culture meaning of the WTF acronym focuses upon a word that is deemed by many people as one of the most offensive words in the English language, which further has transcended into most non-English speaking cultures. Generally, ICANN ought not be allowing an accredited TLD operator to sell domain names specifically centering on that "F-word," which is vulgar and offensive to so many people. There are plenty of other ways for people to express themselves, even among Donuts other hundreds of TLDs, and further by using references to that word in domains at the second and higher level. There simply ought not be an ICANN-accredited TLD registry focusing its sales efforts around such a word. ICANNs Applicant Guidebook states that a TLD should not be approved if the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law. To be sure, use of the F-word in public discourse is not generally accepted as morally appropriate or orderly, even if legal in some contexts. Merely saying that word, particularly in a public or social context, can bring penalties under the laws and/or broadcast regulations of many if not most nations. The lead sentence in the Wikipedia entry for the word states that it is almost universally considered vulgar. Further: The word's use is considered obscene in social contexts. In the modern English-speaking world, the word [] is often considered highly offensive. Most English-speaking countries censor it on television and radio. A [year 2000] study of the attitudes of the British public found that [the word] was considered the third most severe profanity and its derivative [mother-] second. The term remains a taboo word to many people in English-speaking countries. The word also carries a sacrilegious connotation to some. Many religious people oppose the use of profane, vulgar, and "curse" words which they see as offensive to a deity. It is considered highly offensive to utter the word in the presence of children. Therefore, WTCA urges ICANNs Independent Objector to further explore this issue, to file a Limited Public Interest Objection against this application as soon as possible, and for ICANNs designated resolution panel to sustain that objection. WTCA also encourages GAC representatives to issue early warnings to Donuts, and formal advice to ICANN to reject the application on this basis. Ultimately, WTCA would urge the ICANN Board to reject the application on the same basis. WTCA is further concerned about potential negative associations between this TLD string and the .WTC TLD which WTCA seeks to operate. But the WTCA hopes that its specific concerns need not be expressed as the general community concern is so obvious and significant. Failing rejection via ICANN process, WTCA reserves all other rights it may specifically have with respect to the .WTF application and proposed registry business. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

1 0

FW: RFI for URS Providers
by Phil Corwin 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

FYI, yesterday ICANN finally issued a Request for Information (RFI) for potential URS providers. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm Written responses are required by November 20th, with the aim of announcing one or more selected providers by February 28, 2013. 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: ICANN - Toronto annotated agenda - with PUBLISHED/UNPUBLISHED agendas
by Marilyn Cade 25 Sep '12

25 Sep '12

The BC Secretariat quickly put together a summary of where there are agendas, and not for the Toronto meeting of ICANN.ICANN is already 10 days late in publishing the agenda, according to their bylaw commitment. This appears to be a placeholderschedule and it lacks the detail for many of the critical sessions for the BC. However, it is at least a place for us to start, and we will be pushing forward with ICANN senior staff to try go get more agendas for workshops published asap. Bene, thanks for this quick turn around to help the BC understand what is going on at ICANN Toronto! Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

2 1

FW: URS Implementation to Commence -- New ICA Webpost
by Phil Corwin 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

FYI--- http://internetcommerce.org/URS_Implementation URS Implementation Finally to Commence Under GNSO Direction For more than a year ICA has been asking ICANN when it will commence with the task of implementing the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for the new gTLD program as it currently stands in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). The URS is a required rights protection mechanism (RPM) that must be in place before any new gTLDs can open, and the current model balances trademark holder and registrant rights and is the result of a laborious two-year process resulting in recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and subsequently by the ICANN Board. Each of our inquiries about the commencement of URS implementation have received the same general response of "soon", but no perceptible progress had been made since the new gTLD program launched in the spring of 2011. We have just learned that ICANN senior executive Kurt Pritz has sent a publicly available e-mail to GNSO Council Chairman Stephane Van Gelder advising him that URS implementation will finally begin in earnest within a few weeks. That exchange is below, and here are our key take-aways: * ICANN continues to assert that the present URS model does "not appear to meet cost requirements". Yet, so far as know, and our knowledge includes a targeted document disclosure request filed on this and related subjects (see http://internetcommerce.org/WIPO2ICANN_URS_Summits) ICANN has no documented cost analysis proving this assertion and is instead relying on the feedback of the two principal UDRP providers, WIPO and NAF, who have their own separate rationales for making such an assertion. At the conference held yesterday in Washington held to discuss Melbourne IT's HARM proposal (about which we shall post separately) there was a fairly broad consensus that ICANN should publish an RFP for the URS and solicit bids from a broad range of credible arbitration providers beyond the thin ranks of WIPO and NAF, based on the common sense belief that a URS focused on slam dunk infringement should not require a great deal of expert time or associated cost (if it takes more than 15 minutes to render a decision, it's not a black-and-white case and belongs in a UDRP proceeding). There was also considerable support for the notion that, if the price target of $300-$500 simply cannot be met, ICANN should consider at least short-term subsidization by using some of the $350 million it has collected in new gTLD application fees. ICA believes it is premature to "flesh out some of those [alternative] models for possible implementation", and thereby contemplate significant revisions of URS, until we have market testing of the true cost of implementing the present model. Before there is any consideration of "potential solutions", let's determine if there really is a cost problem that needs to be solved. * A meeting on URS implementation, possibly in the form of a webinar, will be scheduled for the first week of October. We are unsure who will be invited to speak at the webinar and whether it will include adequate representation of the registrant community, both commercial and non-commercial. Let's wait and see. * A second meeting will be scheduled during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Toronto. We believe it's is essential that this critical meeting result in a credible path to timely implementation. * ICANN has stated that "the meetings we are having are open to all". This is consistent with the open and transparent approach to URS implementation that ICA has consistently advocated, and we intend to be intimately involved. * ICANN understands the key role played by the GNSO Council in developing and approving the present model and "that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way", and is willing to "work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed". From our viewpoint, this position is an extremely positive development because it respects the key policymaking role that the Council plays for gTLDs, puts the ICANN community as represented by the Council rather than ICANN staff in the driver's seat on designing and managing the implementation process, and is a far better approach than the "Summit" concept contemplated earlier this year. It also undercuts potential efforts by some brand interests to try to circumvent the Council through direct lobbying of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, through it, the ICANN Board. * ICANN aims to "seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the URS was designed" and to balance that with a commitment to "seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model". Assuring that registrants enjoy the essential due process rights written into the current policy, and that they are not diluted in pursuit of complainant cost reduction, will be ICA's foremost goal as this discussion ensues. All in all, these are overdue but overall positive developments. Again, it's our belief that any substantial alteration of the URS based on cost goals should not even be considered until we have some accurate, market-tested idea of the cost of implementing the current model -- and that does not yet exist. Even then, we are wary of reopening this carefully constructed RPM because some of the ideas floating around for reducing cost could substantially reduce registrant rights in new gTLDs and convert the URS from a narrow supplement to the UDRP into a cut-price, rights-gutting alternative to it. That's an unacceptable bait-and-switch. But ICANN's recognition of the central role to be played by the GNSO Council in considering any alteration is positive. It is critically important that whatever is done on URS implementation get off to a sound launch in Toronto, because there is an unusually long half-year gap between it and the next, April 2013 ICANN meeting in Beijing. A botched process could lead to further pushback in the launch date for new gTLDs, while one that results in evisceration of registrant rights could fatally undermine their prospects for success. The e-mail exchange follows: From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:08 AM To: Kurt Pritz Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information. The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit : Hi Stephane: I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those models for possible implementation. We want to have one meeting in about two weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled. The first meeting will be announced shortly. I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the URS was designed and also seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO. I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI. I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions. Regards, Kurt 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP
by Marilyn Cade 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

We need advice. What are implications? Suspending is "okay" if we can block suspension is we disagree. I can't read materially. But do read as much as I can. Can you and Angie make a two sentence case why I shld support this? I am suspicious - just a bit- abt why this. But recognize "suspend" is not "cancel". Shld suspension have a 3, 6, 9, 12 month "revisit? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:15 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear Fellow BC Members, On behalf of Angie Graves and myself (BC SCI reps), I am forwarding (see below) the Standing Committee on Implementation's recommendation on suspension of a PDP that will be sent to the GNSO Council for approval once the SCI signs off. If any BC members have opinions, comments or questions on this matter, please bring them to the list as soon as possible. Hearing no comments, Angie and I will give BC approval to this amendment in the PDP Manual. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ---------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:37 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications (in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika =============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]

2 2