- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

IRTP-B motion at Council
by Chris Chaplow June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Dear John and Zahid, Following the GNSO workshop presentation we now know that the IRTP-B motions will be voted one by one. (and one has a higher threshold than the others) <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+201 1> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 The Chair has asked that the three BC members of the working Group make a recommendation on how our councilors should vote on each one of these complex issues. All three members Mikey O Connor , Berry Cobb, and Chris Chaplow recommend that you vote in FAVOUR of each and every motion. This is Berrys priority list: I think our councilors should vote YES each recommendation. As for priority, Im flexible. If it were up to me, here is my order: · Resolved A · Resolved G · Resolved F · Resolved C · Resolved B · Resolved E · Resolved D This is Chris flexible priority list RESOLVED (A) RESOLVED (E) RESOLVED (F) RESOLVED (G) RESOLVED (D) RESOLVED (B) RESOLVED (C) Any BC members is welcome to provide comment or opinions to the Councilors before the Council meeting on Wednesday. Best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

agendas for Tuesday/reminder of social event with Board/location announced separately
by Marilyn Cade June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

SOCIAL EVENT LOCATION PROVIDED SEPARATELY BY BENEDETTA TO MEETINGS GROUP LIST.Dear MembersIn addition to a very packed agenda and the extraordinary Board session re new gTLDs outcome, a reminder that today has the BC/Board/ISPCP Social event 6-7:15 p.m., followed by the Chairman's Recognition Event. The Board event is a new experience/opportunity for us to interact in a small setting with the Board and is part of the new approach for interacting with the community in small groups. The location is posted separately to meetings(a)hotmail.com by Benedetta shortly. See you during the day during the various sessions. The outcome of the Board decision will be to move forward, I think, but there may have been more progress toward fixing some of the outstanding issues. Agendas for Tuesday's upcoming meeting pasted below.TUESDAY starts with breakfast at 8 a.m. with ALSC and ISPCP and IPC. The location in on the ICANN Schedule. If you have a guest you haven't confirmed, let me know. If you haven't signed a note to Peter for his Memory Book, Benedetta or I will have paper for you to use for that, and you can take a look at the various pictures that were gathered to go into it. Many of you are in the snaps or pictures contributed. Marilyn CadeBC Chair======================

2 1

latest GAC letter to ICANN Board regarding new gTLDs
by Steve DelBianco June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Don't pop the corks just yet… See below and http://domainincite.com/docs/dryden-thrush-july182011.pdf -- The GAC recognises that the most recent version of the Draft Applicant guidebook includes several changes which address some of the GAC's outstanding concerns but notes that there remain several substantive issues which require resolution before the launch of the new gTLD application process. These include: - competition concerns, in particular those resulting from changes to registry-registrar cross-ownership rules; - the demonstration of use requirement for trademark holders wishing to avail themselves of the propose trademark protection mechanisms; and - removal of references in the gTLD Guidebook that attempt to specify that future GAC early warnings and advice must contain particular information or take a specified form, as these references are inconsistent with the GAC operating principles and the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC would advise the Board that these issues involve important public policy objectives and, until resolved, also risk gTLD applications being made that conflict with applicable law. The GAC is of the view that the potential for this conflict with applicable law would operate to the detriment of gTLD applicants. Accordingly, the gTLD Guidebook should be amended to reflect these outstanding concerns. The GAC draws the Board's attention to previous advice :  on appropriate and timely support that should be provided to developing countries in implementing the new gTLD process;  on appropriate protections that should be offered to the Olympic, Olympiad and Red Crescent/Red Cross names contained in the 26 May letter conveying the GAC's comments on the April 15 version of the Applicant Guidebook. The GAC awaits the ICANN Board's response to this advice, and an explanation of how the advice will be considered before any decision on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook. The GAC advises the Board that where the gTLD Guidebook attempts to specify that future GAC advice must contain particular information or take a specified form, these references should be deleted as they are inconsistent with GAC operating principles and the Bylaws. To this end, and notwithstanding the GAC's wish to avoid any further delay in the new gTLD process, the GAC would advise the Board to ensure that all remaining public policy concerns are properly addressed and adequately respected before the new gTLD application procedure is finalised. The GAC regards the ICANN Board's willingness and ability to respond to the GAC's views and to provide a rationale for its decisions is an important demonstration of the effectiveness of the ICANN multistakeholder model.

1 0

GNSO Council topics with Board
by Ron Andruff June 18, 2011

June 18, 2011

Jon, Zahid, Could either of you please advise what the following discussion point with the Board is about? "Community Working Groups (CWGs) is a discussion we need to continue to have with the Board, if only to update them on the recent discussions we've had amongst ourselves." I didn't want to burden the call today, but am interested to know what CWGs are. Thanks for any insight you can provide. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.

2 1

FW: ATRT Update - Informational post to BC - Input requested form Members
by Marilyn Cade June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

The AoC/ATRT issue is a priority area for the CSG and BC and we will be discussing the status with the Board in the CSG discussions. I have continued to try to find the latest information available, and like many of you have been awaiting the publication of a report on the ATRT. Since we haven't seen the 'report', I asked Staff for an update on the status on the ATRT -- the answer is: "The latest ATRT update is posted at the top of the "Accountability & Transparency" webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm and an updated report will be issued in Singapore. This is still a little confusing: see below. This may be the 'ATRT Report' referenced in the response. I will do all I can to verify that today with staff. However, I wanted to provide this information to you upon receipt. There is a sort of spreadsheet with a list of the 27 items available on the special webpage. For the most part, it appears that the Staff are moving ahead with implementation plans and that various Board committees have oversight responsibility. In our meeting tomorrow morning, we will take 10 minutes on this topic, in preparation for our discussion in the CSG on Tuesday before meeting with the Board. For those not here in Singapore, please send any comments to bc-private that you wish us to include in the BC prep. Marilyn CadeBC Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ATRT Activities Update – June 2011At its January and March meetings, ICANN's Board affirmed the utility of the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT) report in advancing ICANN’s accountability and transparency and asked for Staff and community follow-up work. The Board also asked Board Committees and the Board-GAC Joint Working Group (JWG) to address specified ATRT recommendations and asked the Board Finance Committee to consider proposed FY2012 ATRT implementation funding as detailed by Staff. Significant progress has been made on implementation of the ATRT "Board Governance, Performance & Composition" recommendations. A wealth of Board meeting information is now regularly posted: agendas, Board briefing materials, expanded Board minutes, rationale statements for Board resolutions, and resolutions. A significant amount of Board meeting information also is now posted in six U.N. languages, including resolutions, rationale, minutes and other key material relevant to Board resolutions. To support these postings, the template used to create Board papers has been revised, and a document was finalized and posted that sets forth conditions for redaction of Board briefing materials that are posted, along with explanation of timing of the postings. To address Board composition, the Nominating Committee has already taken voluntary steps to comply with some ATRT recommendations, including consulting with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and holding public consultations on skill set requirements and process improvements at the March ICANN meeting Implementation work for ATRT recommendations relating to "Governmental Advisory Committee’s Role, Effectiveness and Interaction with Board" is in the early stages. Staff has provided proposed implementation plans and budgets to the GAC and JWG and is awaiting guidance on implementation. The Board Global Relations Committee has provided initial guidance on Recommendation 14 for increasing the level of support and involvement of governments. Work is underway on implementation of the ATRT "Public Input & Public Policy Processes" recommendations. Two important items in this category will be posted shortly: the ICANN Bylaws, and the ICANN Language Services Policy and Procedures (guidelines for translation, interpretation, and other language-related services). This month a new, more streamlined draft design for ICANN’s Public Comment Webpages will be launched. This will be supported by internal staff templates to collect consistent information for each public comment and to report on closed comment periods. A draft stratification list – designed to direct the community’s attention to topics of interest – is under Staff review and will be reviewed by a focus group of community members next month. A process to collect and publish an annual list of “Upcoming Public Comments for 2011” was developed with the input from SO/AC leaders and ICANN Staff, and will be published this month.Staff also is working on implementation of the ATRT recommendations on "Review Mechanism(s) for Board Decisions." Initial improvements to the Reconsideration Request web page will be done in the near future, including the addition of status indicators for all Requests, and information on Boardaction arising out of the committee recommendations.

1 0

First post from ICANN meeting in Singapore: Decision Day is tomorrow
by Steve DelBianco June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

See below or on blog (link<http://blog.netchoice.org/2011/06/decision-day-for-icann-the-end-of-the-beg…>). Decision Day for ICANN: the end of the beginning, or the beginning of the end?<http://blog.netchoice.org/2011/06/decision-day-for-icann-the-end-of-the-beg…> I’ve just arrived in Singapore, where ICANN’s board will almost surely vote to launch an unprecedented expansion plan for generic top-level domains (gTLDs). As the new gTLDs start lighting-up over the next two years, we’ll look back on this week as the “end of the beginning” since it ended several years of planning for the actual expansion. After the vote the real work begins: evaluating applications, implementing new mechanisms, and contract compliance on a scale far greater than ICANN has ever seen. In a year or so we’ll know whether ICANN was up to the challenge. If it turns out there wasn’t adequate attention to concerns of governments, law enforcement, and global brands, then we’ll look back on this weekend’s vote as the beginning of the end for ICANN. That’s because a botched expansion could discredit ICANN and its multi-stakeholder model. Mike Palage likened this to humpty-dumpty<http://www.circleid.com/posts/what_icann_can_learn_from_humpty_dumpty/> falling off his wall and crashing into pieces. Now, who’d rush in pick up the pieces of Internet governance? The United Nations and its International Telecommunications Union (ITU), of course. As NTIA chief Larry Strickling warned ISOC<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2011/Strickling_INET_06142011.html> on Tuesday, “some nations persist in proposing such measures as giving the ITU the authority to veto ICANN board decisions.” But even ICANN’s harshest critics –including Mr. Strickling -- aren’t anxious to have the UN and ITU take over Internet governance. Because as I describedhere<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101130_a_tale_of_two_governance_models/> and here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110327_dot_xxx_exposes_the_naked_truth_for_…>, the UN is a body where every government has one vote to trade, while the private sector and civil society get no votes at all. That’s one of the things I told a US Congressional committee when I testified<http://www.netchoice.org/netchoice-testimony-to-us-house-judiciary-committe…> at an ICANN oversight hearing last month. I also encouraged the US Government to hold ICANN to its obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>, and to stay deeply engaged with ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC). (Actually, those recommendations work for any government seeking a larger role in Internet governance.) At the end of the nearly 3-hour hearing, one Congressman pressed the witnesses to explain why we needed any new TLDs. I gave a two-part answer. First, it’s hard to see how we continue to grow the Internet without ever adding any new TLDs. Mobile, social, and local are where Internet innovation is happening today, and domain expansion will provide new labels for these innovations. Second, all present gTLDs are in the Latin alphabet – on a planet where 56% of the population uses scripts other than Latin. The only way non-Latin script users can enter domain names and email addresses entirely in their native language is to offer new gTLDs in non-Latin characters. While I still have concerns about the expansion, I have to acknowledge the efforts of ICANN to address most of the issues raised. As with most negotiations, a lot of the movement occurred only when there was real pressure to bring closure to the planning stage. It was that kind of pressure which forced ICANN to address legitimate concerns of governments and businesses that rely on DNS integrity and availability. Recent negotiations with the GAC show that all of us at ICANN are finally learning how to engage with governments. As more governments get more involved through the GAC and the Affirmation reviews, that engagement will grow. Although I’ll continue to work for improvements up to the last minute, I’m also prepared to applaud when the ICANN Board votes on the final plan. Because until we get past the end of the beginning, we’ll never get to work on the happy ending we all want to see. --Steve DelBianco

1 0

ICANN 41 Public Forum Topics
by Marilyn Cade June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Dear BC Members Filiz Yilmaz, the Director of Public Participation has requested two topics from each SG/AC that we would like to see on the agenda. I would like to invite you to nominate topics no later than the CSG meeting on Tuesday. To speed the process, if you have topics, please send them to me, cc to BC secretariat, and we will put forward to Tony Holmes, who is coordinating the CSG meeting in Singapore ahead of time to speed the discussion during the CSG.

1 0

BC comment on the ICANN FY12 Budget and Operating Plan
by Chris Chaplow June 17, 2011

June 17, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the Final Copy of the BC comment on the ICANN FY12 Budget and Operating Plan which I am now submitting to the I included comments received from the Chair. and I made some minor improvement to the draft document previously submitted to this list. And I Prepared the single table view of all financial cost information in the Budget and Operating Plan Happy to discuss this in detail with any member during the meeting in Singapore and in advance of the board vote on the plan on Friday Best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

Special ICANN 41 Singapore Meeting Policy Edition
by Marilyn Cade June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Dear BC Members Please note that a new ICANN Policy Update is available now at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-jun11-en.htm I am forwarding it for convenience purposes. Normally, in the future, you will see such notices from Benedetta, as BC Secretariat. Marilyn CadeBC Chair

1 0

FW: Meeting with WHOIS RT - Singapore -- Discussion Paper
by Marilyn Cade June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

It is my pleasure to forward this Discussion Paper along to the BC. All members should review and shareany comments; for those not in attendance, Steve and I will ensure that your comments are also shared with the WHOIS Review Team. Marilyn CadeBC Chair > From: alice.jansen(a)icann.org > To: tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; met(a)msk.com > CC: CDiGangi(a)inta.org; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; secretariat-bc(a)hotmail.com; emily.taylor(a)nominet.org.uk; olof.nordling(a)icann.org; gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:28:15 -0700 > Subject: Meeting with WHOIS RT - Singapore > > Dear All, > > On behalf of the WHOIS Policy Review Team Chair Emily Taylor and in > anticipation of your session with the WHOIS RT scheduled for Tuesday, 21 > June 14:00-15:00, please find attached a copy of the discussion paper > recently issued by the Review Team. > > In Singapore, the WHOIS Policy Review Team will solicit input from the > Community on this document as announced on 9 June: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jun11-en.htm. > > The RT looks forward to gathering your constituencies' input not only on > this set of issues but also on its processes, working documents, > activities etc. The Review Team also welcomes general comments and > feedback on any other issues your constituencies would like the Review > Team to consider. > > Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have questions or concerns. > > Thank you, > > Very best regards > > Alice > > > > >

1 0