- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

IRTP-B - statement on Council by BC
by Zahid Jamil June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Dear Berry & Mickey, I hope the statement was helpful and addresses at least in part some of the sentiments of the IRTP WG members. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

1 0

FW: IP-Watch Brief: EU's Kroes Not Amused By ICANN Decision On New TLDs
by Phil Corwin June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Intellectual Property Watch [info(a)ip-watch.ch] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:20 AM To: Phil Corwin Subject: IP-Watch Brief: EU's Kroes Not Amused By ICANN Decision On New TLDs This is the post digest for pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com<mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> sent by the Intellectual Property Watch website. ******************************************************************************************************** June 22, 2011. EU's Kroes Not Amused By ICANN Decision On New TLDs Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=16417&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&ut… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Become an Intellectual Property Watch subscriber to receive all the news stories, briefs, and the latest on people in the IP policy community not available elsewhere on the IPW website. Click here for details: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/registration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are signed up to receive these notifications. You may change the frequency of your email alerts to immediate, daily, weekly or monthly and may choose the topics you wish to be notified about. If you would like to modify the settings of your subscription or to be removed, visit the url below: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/manage/u/c859c44fa492b224d22834fdd315fe65

1 0

Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

yep. and so does this volunteer WG member. i'm now fully trained. On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > Mikey, > > I think the GNSO Council has a clear understanding of its role in the policy development process. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > > Le 22 juin 2011 à 02:18, Mike O'Connor a écrit : > >> yep -- i get that Tim. i'm really zeroed in on the process, though. it would be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation. this issue is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe. my worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue on a WG report and the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances. >> >> as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we fixed it for you." >> >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> >>> Mikey, >>> >>> My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that rec >>> was already acted on. The locking question has already been picked up in >>> the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report). >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during >>>> UDRP >>>> From: "Mike O'Connor" >>>> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm >>>> To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org Mailing List" >>>> , "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org GNSO list" >>>> , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane >>>> Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >>>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. >>>> >>>> as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. >>>> >>>> you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. >>>> >>>> i'm still trainable. :-) >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> - - - - - >>>> phone 651-647-6109 >>>> fax 866-280-2356 >>>> web http://www.haven2.com >>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >>> >> >> - - - - - - - - - >> phone 651-647-6109 >> fax 866-280-2356 >> web http://www.haven2.com >> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >> > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Berry Cobb June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

I will mimic Marilyn's standard by stating that I am writing on my own behalf and not that of the BC. In case you were not aware, I also participated on the IRTP-B WG. I will probably not shock anyone with my support of Mikey's view. This is not the only recommendation where the issue of Policy Development vs. Managing the Policy Process has surfaced. I reference the RAP recommendation of a Non-Binding PDP on Best Practices of Malicious Use of Domain Names. We have a proper GNSO sanctioned "pre-PDP" process that would have acted as the framework in which to proceed, and that is what the WG attempted to follow. Instead, the recommendation was watered down to a "Discussion Paper" with no clear guidance on next steps. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall "Discussion Papers" in any part of the GNSO process. I will not claim to be an expert in GNSO bylaws, but in my opinion this is an adequate example where policy development at the Council bypassed consensus of the WG recommendation. But, I digress. Tim, you state that this IRTP recommendation is now folded in to the UDRP Issues report. That's great, and HOPEFULLY a PDP will be approved. However, what happens if a PDP on UDRP does not get approved by the council? Now what? I'm speculating here, but "BLACK HOLE" comes to mind. And when I see black holes the real result is that nothing gets fixed or accomplished except a waste of time. Lastly, I will take these experiences as a valuable learning lesson for future PDP recommendations, if I am involved with such. WG members and community participants MUST be more diligent in how we frame PDP recommendations submitted to the Council. Further, WGs must provide more clarity and less ambiguity of the recommendation and a suggested path on how they should be executed. I personally feel that if we do not course correct soon,the PDP process will be in jeopardy of losing credibility. Thank you for your time. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org] On Behalf Of tim(a)godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:01 PM To: Mike O'Connor Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org; stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP I'd rather not. I've explained it to you. You either don't get it or don't want to. If you want to discuss F2F let me know. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:54:44 To: <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP Tim, i'd much rather have this conversation over a limited-scope test-case issue that's relatively straightforward to resolve than a really hard one. if working groups are the place where policy gets made, then let the WG fix this minor problem for you rather than fixing it yourselves. On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:52 AM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: > Mikey, > > My record is pretty clear on process. I defend it fiercly. But you are really blowing this out of proportion. If you are trainable, let it show. Let's discuss further F2F. > > Best, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25 > To: <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; > <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking > during UDRP > > you folks get to do whatever you want to do -- but like i said, i'm trainable. if you as the Council are going to make that call, without engaging the WG in the conversation, you're setting precedents that the Council may come to regret when it is trying to recruit volunteers to devote years of their lives to efforts like that in the future. > > all you have to do is ask us, rather than telling us. > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: > >> >> There is nothing for the WG to fix and the Council is not changing any recs. We just want to consider that one with the UDRP issue it is already tied in with. I am all for process, but we can protect that without duplicating efforts. >> >> Tim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 >> To: Tim Ruiz<tim(a)godaddy.com> >> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; >> <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking >> during UDRP >> >> yep -- i get that Tim. i'm really zeroed in on the process, though. it would be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation. this issue is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe. my worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue on a WG report and the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances. >> >> as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we fixed it for you." >> >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> >>> Mikey, >>> >>> My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that >>> rec was already acted on. The locking question has already been >>> picked up in the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report). >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking >>>> during UDRP >>>> From: "Mike O'Connor" >>>> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm >>>> To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org Mailing List" >>>> , "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org GNSO list" >>>> , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane >>>> Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >>>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. >>>> >>>> as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. >>>> >>>> you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. >>>> >>>> i'm still trainable. :-) >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> - - - - - >>>> phone 651-647-6109 >>>> fax 866-280-2356 >>>> web http://www.haven2.com >>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >>> >> >> - - - - - - - - - >> phone 651-647-6109 >> fax 866-280-2356 >> web http://www.haven2.com >> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >> >> > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

2 1

Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Tim, i'd much rather have this conversation over a limited-scope test-case issue that's relatively straightforward to resolve than a really hard one. if working groups are the place where policy gets made, then let the WG fix this minor problem for you rather than fixing it yourselves. On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:52 AM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: > Mikey, > > My record is pretty clear on process. I defend it fiercly. But you are really blowing this out of proportion. If you are trainable, let it show. Let's discuss further F2F. > > Best, > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25 > To: <tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP > > you folks get to do whatever you want to do -- but like i said, i'm trainable. if you as the Council are going to make that call, without engaging the WG in the conversation, you're setting precedents that the Council may come to regret when it is trying to recruit volunteers to devote years of their lives to efforts like that in the future. > > all you have to do is ask us, rather than telling us. > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: > >> >> There is nothing for the WG to fix and the Council is not changing any recs. We just want to consider that one with the UDRP issue it is already tied in with. I am all for process, but we can protect that without duplicating efforts. >> >> Tim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 >> To: Tim Ruiz<tim(a)godaddy.com> >> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP >> >> yep -- i get that Tim. i'm really zeroed in on the process, though. it would be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation. this issue is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe. my worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue on a WG report and the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances. >> >> as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we fixed it for you." >> >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> >>> Mikey, >>> >>> My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that rec >>> was already acted on. The locking question has already been picked up in >>> the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report). >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during >>>> UDRP >>>> From: "Mike O'Connor" >>>> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm >>>> To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org Mailing List" >>>> , "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org GNSO list" >>>> , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane >>>> Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >>>> >>>> hi all, >>>> >>>> i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. >>>> >>>> as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. >>>> >>>> you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. >>>> >>>> i'm still trainable. :-) >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> mikey >>>> >>>> - - - - - >>>> phone 651-647-6109 >>>> fax 866-280-2356 >>>> web http://www.haven2.com >>>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >>> >> >> - - - - - - - - - >> phone 651-647-6109 >> fax 866-280-2356 >> web http://www.haven2.com >> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >> >> > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

you folks get to do whatever you want to do -- but like i said, i'm trainable. if you as the Council are going to make that call, without engaging the WG in the conversation, you're setting precedents that the Council may come to regret when it is trying to recruit volunteers to devote years of their lives to efforts like that in the future. all you have to do is ask us, rather than telling us. On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tim(a)godaddy.com wrote: > > There is nothing for the WG to fix and the Council is not changing any recs. We just want to consider that one with the UDRP issue it is already tied in with. I am all for process, but we can protect that without duplicating efforts. > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 > To: Tim Ruiz<tim(a)godaddy.com> > Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>; <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP > > yep -- i get that Tim. i'm really zeroed in on the process, though. it would be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation. this issue is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe. my worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue on a WG report and the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances. > > as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we fixed it for you." > > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >> Mikey, >> >> My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that rec >> was already acted on. The locking question has already been picked up in >> the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report). >> >> Tim >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during >>> UDRP >>> From: "Mike O'Connor" >>> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm >>> To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org Mailing List" >>> , "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org GNSO list" >>> , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane >>> Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. >>> >>> as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. >>> >>> you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. >>> >>> i'm still trainable. :-) >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> - - - - - >>> phone 651-647-6109 >>> fax 866-280-2356 >>> web http://www.haven2.com >>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) >> > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

yep -- i get that Tim. i'm really zeroed in on the process, though. it would be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation. this issue is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe. my worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue on a WG report and the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances. as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we fixed it for you." On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Mikey, > > My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that rec > was already acted on. The locking question has already been picked up in > the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report). > > Tim > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during > > UDRP > > From: "Mike O'Connor" > > Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm > > To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09(a)icann.org Mailing List" > > , "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org GNSO list" > > , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane > > Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu > > > > hi all, > > > > i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. > > > > as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. > > > > you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. > > > > i'm still trainable. :-) > > > > thanks, > > > > mikey > > > > - - - - - > > phone 651-647-6109 > > fax 866-280-2356 > > web http://www.haven2.com > > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
by Mike O'Connor June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

hi all, i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later today. this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because i can. as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on its own. this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO. what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working group for refinement. you can even include suggestions if you like. but please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance to participate in the process. you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you like. i'm still trainable. :-) thanks, mikey - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

CircleID Post: ICANN approves expansion plan for top-level domains (TLDs)
by Steve DelBianco June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Here's my post regarding ICANN Board approval of expansion plan for top-level domains (TLDs). See below or link<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110620_now_begins_the_third_stage_of_icanns…> Now Begins the Third Stage of ICANN's TLD Triathlon<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110620_now_begins_the_third_stage_of_icanns…> The ICANN community here in Singapore is celebrating after the historic vote to expand top-level domains (TLDs). And while I wouldn't begrudge anyone a few Singapore Slings, I think it's a little early to start celebrating. The marathon effort ICANN began 5 years ago isn't even close to reaching the finish line. Actually, marathon is probably the wrong analogy. Try this: A month from now, our host city of Singapore will welcome competitors to the 10th International Triathlon. What makes a triathlon so uniquely challenging is that after you complete a grueling swim and punishing bike race, you still have the hardest stage ahead of you: a long-distance run. That's where the ICANN community is now — just off the starting line for the longest and hardest stage of the race. How we run this stage will determine whether or not new TLDs succeed from the standpoint of the stakeholder groups that really matter: domain registrants and Internet users. The first stage of the TLD triathlon — the open-water swim — was a painstaking, community-driven policy development process that took the better part of five years. It had all the feeling of a swim in the open sea, requiring constant movement without much forward progress. But we eventually stumbled onto the beach only to begin an unexpectedly contentious stage two. The second stage of the TLD triathlon — the bike race — was the ICANN Board's six-month saga of high-pressure, high-stakes negotiations with the Government Advisory Committee. Like a bike race, it was fast and dangerous, putting at risk everything that was accomplished in the prior stage. Monday's 13-1 vote in favor of TLD expansion was like the race stage, where you feel grateful just for having survived. That brought us to what I and several board members called "the end of the beginning<http://www.circleid.com/posts/decision_day_for_icann_the_end_of_the_beginni…>”. Now ICANN faces stage three: the long-haul work of implementing the most ambitious undertaking yet. This next stage is no victory lap. The global Internet community — including many stakeholders who weren't satisfied with the outcome of the policy development process — will be watching ICANN's every move to find an excuse to supplant its multi-stakeholder model with traditional multi-government models like the UN. ICANN board resolution leaves enough unfinished business for stakeholders to spend the next year tweaking the "final" guidebook, even as ICANN's foot-weary staff does the difficult work of putting it into effect. During this stage of the race, ICANN must uphold its signature commitments to accountability and transparency. As the process evolves in keeping with today's resolution, ICANN must also uphold the multistakeholder model and avoid any closed-door, staff-driven shortcuts that might seem expedient as the running gets harder. Given the timeline approved this week, we're likely to see our first new gTLDs sometime in 2013. If we all start running now, we can finish the TLD Triathlon and throw a real party — in about two years. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

ATRT
by Benedetta Rossi June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Dear BC Members, FYI regarding Accountability and Transparency Review as found on the following link: http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm Please see the 3 links below the main paragraph. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat ICANN Accountability & Transparency**Looking for the status of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team's recommendations? Click here.****Looking for information on implementation of ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments obligations? Click here.**In order for ICANN's international, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model to operate effectively, frameworks and mechanisms for accountability and transparency were built into ICANN and have been improved upon over time. ICANN's commitment to transparency and accountability is emphasized in its foundational documents, such as its Bylaws, and delineated in the "Accountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles" adopted by ICANN's Board in 2008. Our commitment also is regularly reinforced in ICANN's strategic and operational plans and in targeted efforts to periodically review and improveICANN's structures and processes.Affirmation of CommitmentsICANN's accountability to the global community was permanently reinforced in September 2009 when ICANN's President & CEO signed, on behalf of ICANN, the Affirmation of Commitments with the U.S. Department of Commerce. It affirms ICANN's independence and commitment to making decisions in the public interest that are accountable and transparent. The Affirmation also commits ICANN to reviews performed by the community — including the recently completed Accountability and Transparency review. ICANN intends to fulfill, and where possible exceed, our obligations under the Affirmation.ICANN's commitment to fulfilling its Affirmation obligations and advancing its transparency and accountability is demonstrated in a multitude of ways throughout ICANN. ICANN's President & CEO, for example, regularly publishes a metrics "dashboard" that provides the public with detailed information on internal operations, including performance indicators in areas such as Registrant Protection, Global Participation, Finance and IDNs, to name but a few. To advance the Board's transparency and accountability, a public wiki was launched to track and document action on every Board resolution, briefing materials for Board meetings are publicly posted along with Board meeting minutes and resolutions, the rationale for each new Boardresolution is publicly archived, and new resolutions are translated into five languages, to name just a few activities.The ICANN community also has been at the forefront of increasing transparency and accountability. For example, ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees publicly post detailed information on their activities, along with resources for participating in their deliberations.A more exhaustive list of ICANN activities that contribute to accountability and transparency and support the Affirmation's objectives can be found on our website.Accountability & Transparency ReviewRecent ATRT implementation activities are summarized here.In January 2011, the Board acknowledged receipt of the final report, encouraged input on the recommendations, and asked ICANN staff to propose initial work plans and budgets for the recommendations. From 31 December 2010 to 14 February 2011 the ATRT Report was posted for public comment. The Board subsequently found that "all 27 of the recommendations have the potential to advance ICANN's transparency and accountability objectives and may be implemented by ICANN following careful and transparent consideration, and with the necessary support and resources." The Board also acknowledged that "some of the ATRT recommendations relate to operations that staff has already changed, or is in the process of changing, thanks to ATRT guidance, and some recommendations will require additional time, resources, and consultations to implement."At its March 2011 Board meeting, the Board asked staff to provide the Board with: proposed plans for the implementation of the ATRT recommendations and input on implementation costs; proposed metrics to quantify and track activities called for in the Affirmation and ATRT report; and proposed benchmarks that will enable ICANN to compare its accountability and transparency-related efforts to international entities' best practices. The Board also asked the Governmental Advisory Committee and the Nominating Committee to work with the Board on implementation of recommendations involving their organizations. In addition, the Board also tasked [PDF, 60 KB] Board Committees and the Board-GAC Joint Working Group (JWG) to address specified ATRT recommendations [PDF, 60 KB] and asked the Board Finance Committee to consider proposed FY2012 ATRT implementation funding.Board Committees and the JWG considered the ATRT recommendations and corresponding, proposed implementation plans and provided advice to the Board. The ATRT Report and budget is scheduled for Board action on 24 June 2011 at ICANN's Singapore meeting. The latest updates on ATRT recommendations are provided below:ATRT recommendations implementation summary, June 2011ATRT recommendations projects list, updated 19 June 2011 [PDF, 334 KB]ATRT recommendations implementation plans, June 2011 [PDF, 750 KB]Previous material provided to the Board in March 2011 includes:Board Paper [PDF, 121 KB] and Annex [PDF, 216 KB] recommending ATRT implementationATRT project list [PDF, 131 KB] detailing proposed implementation schedules and resources.Initial proposed implementation plans for ATRT recommendations [PDF, 424 KB]ATRT-related activities as of 9 March 2011 [PDF, 75 KB]Reconsideration & Independent Review of ICANN ActionsInformation on ICANN processes for reconsideration and independent review of ICANN actions, including the Office of the Ombudsman, can be found here.

1 0