Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
i'm in. good job Mike. mikey On Jan 5, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Hello All,
As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments.
Best regards,
Michael
DRAFT TEXT
Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs.
As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice.
In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland.
While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization.
We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting.
We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below:
Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.”
Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers.
The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers.
Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years.
Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process.
We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Mikey, Thanks for the kind words, however, the text of this document is really attributable to a number of my ICANN colleagues. I originally started to draft the text to this letter on the way back from Cartagena after ICANN was rather non-committal to having an open meeting. That original idea and draft text was then shared with a number of colleagues from the ALAC, registrar, registrar, IPC and NCSG communities. In fact some of the last substantive changes that I included were contributed made by our own Marilyn Cade, who I would like to thank as she took some time to make edits on the last day of her holiday vacation. I strongly believe that this is a defining moment in ICANN history that will set important precedent for future actions, and that the entire ICANN community needs to have their voice heard on this one. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:26 PM To: Michael D. Palage Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting i'm in. good job Mike. mikey On Jan 5, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote: Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANNs Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANNs leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANNs legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANNs eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent. While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding public interest, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANNs legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANNs position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Also - sorry for late response on this, but USCIB supports the letter as well. Nice work to all, including you Mike, for getting this done. Cheers, Chris From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 7:26 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Mikey, Thanks for the kind words, however, the text of this document is really attributable to a number of my ICANN colleagues. I originally started to draft the text to this letter on the way back from Cartagena after ICANN was rather non-committal to having an open meeting. That original idea and draft text was then shared with a number of colleagues from the ALAC, registrar, registrar, IPC and NCSG communities. In fact some of the last substantive changes that I included were contributed made by our own Marilyn Cade, who I would like to thank as she took some time to make edits on the last day of her holiday vacation. I strongly believe that this is a defining moment in ICANN history that will set important precedent for future actions, and that the entire ICANN community needs to have their voice heard on this one. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:26 PM To: Michael D. Palage Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting i'm in. good job Mike. mikey On Jan 5, 2011, at 5:20 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote: Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN's Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN's leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN's legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC - Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN's eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to "ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent." While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding "public interest", this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN's legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN's position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Good initiative, Michael. As I recall, in the video interview with PDT and RB posted on the ICANN home page at the conclusion of the Cartagena meeting, PDT is asked about this open/closed question -- and after noting that ICANN’s default position is to hold open meetings, he then says the matter hasn’t been worked out yet, and then further volunteers that while the meeting might be for the most part open, it might be closed in part (or key participants might head into a back room) when sensitive matters or an impasse arose. So I would suggest that the letter address that possibility and urge that matters not be resolved behind closed doors and then brought back into an open meeting simply for ratification, with the community unable to observe the dialogue that led to the resolution. Also, while I’m not suggesting it be raised in the letter (which should be confined to the transparency issue) it’s quite likely that any resolution of new gTLD matters will be in general terms, as is the usual practice in large meetings, with technical details left to staff. Given the short time between Geneva and San Francisco it’s not clear to me how staff will incorporate these revisions in an amended proposed final Guidebook and make that available to the community with sufficient time to permit adequate review prior to SF. I guess we’ll just see how that goes. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:21 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
Job well done! RNA Partners supports this initiative as well. Kind regards and Happy New Year to all! RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:21 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANNs Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANNs leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANNs legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANNs eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent. While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding public interest, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANNs legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANNs position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
dotBERLIN also supports Michaels iniatiative. Best regards, Dirk Krischenowski _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:21 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANNs Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANNs leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANNs legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANNs eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness. Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent. While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding public interest, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANNs legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANNs position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
Mike, Great idea and thank you for pulling this together. I support. Best wishes for the New year, Martin Martin C SUTTON Group Risk Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ Group Security & Fraud Risk 8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________ Phone. +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 Mobile. +44 (0) 7774556680 Email. martinsutton@hsbc.com ________________________________________________________________ "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com> Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Jan 05 2011 23:22 Mail Size: 21548 To <bc-gnso@icann.org> cc Subject [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN?s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN?s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN?s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC ? Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN?s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that ?ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.? Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to ?ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.? While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding ?public interest?, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN?s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN?s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner. ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
Cyveillance will support this. Great job Michael! Greg Ogorek Cyveillance, Inc. On 1/5/11 6:20 PM, "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com> wrote:
Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael
DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs.
As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN¹s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice.
In many ways, the legacy of ICANN¹s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland.
While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN¹s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization.
We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN¹s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting.
We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below:
Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that ³ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.²
Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to ³ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.² While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding ³public interest², this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers.
The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers.
Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN¹s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years.
Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN¹s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process.
We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
Dear Michael and all, When the meeting was suggested at the Cartegena Board/GAC session I noted a presumption in the Community and Twitter that it would be closed and along the lines of “after all this time, looks like it is going to take a closed head to head to sort this out, welcome to the real world.” Naturally I was pleased to hear the Board Chair in the post Cartagena press conference clarify that this Meeting would be open. This video is still on the ICANN home page. I recommend all BC members to watch it. Best Regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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@andaluciaws.com> chris@andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 06 de enero de 2011 0:21 Para: bc-gnso@icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
Chris: I commend all BC members to watch it as well – because, as I pointed out yesterday, Chairman Thrush’s statement regarding the open/closed nature of the meeting were ambiguous and not the final word. That is why Michael’s letter is particularly welcome. --Philip From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 12:51 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage' Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Dear Michael and all, When the meeting was suggested at the Cartegena Board/GAC session I noted a presumption in the Community and Twitter that it would be closed and along the lines of “after all this time, looks like it is going to take a closed head to head to sort this out, welcome to the real world.” Naturally I was pleased to hear the Board Chair in the post Cartagena press conference clarify that this Meeting would be open. This video is still on the ICANN home page. I recommend all BC members to watch it. Best Regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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: chris@andaluciaws.com<mailto:chris@andaluciaws.com> Web: www.andaluciaws.com<http://www.andalucia.com/> De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 06 de enero de 2011 0:21 Para: bc-gnso@icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
Chris, It is exactly because of some of these mixed signals that I drafted the text in the first place. In an ideal world, ICANN in the next couple of days will announce details for how people can observe this meeting in person and remotely, and then the proposed text can be forgotten about. However, in the absence of any public commitment to make this meeting open to both in person and remote observation I think the community needs to take proactive steps in case ICANN does not make the right decision. So hopefully this makes sense as to the actions I have taken, and my cautious optimism that ICANN will do the right thing. However, if ICANN does not, then the BC and other ICANN stakeholders have a way of making their voice heard in a timely and intelligent manner. However, someone did kindly point out a spelling error in my draft text that will be corrected. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 12:51 PM To: 'Michael D. Palage' Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Dear Michael and all, When the meeting was suggested at the Cartegena Board/GAC session I noted a presumption in the Community and Twitter that it would be closed and along the lines of “after all this time, looks like it is going to take a closed head to head to sort this out, welcome to the real world.” Naturally I was pleased to hear the Board Chair in the post Cartagena press conference clarify that this Meeting would be open. This video is still on the ICANN home page. I recommend all BC members to watch it. Best Regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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@andaluciaws.com> chris@andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 06 de enero de 2011 0:21 Para: bc-gnso@icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting Hello All, As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet been publicly addressed. As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared these same concerns. It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any questions/comments. Best regards, Michael DRAFT TEXT Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through a number of challenges and achievements: expiration of the Joint Project Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs. As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice. In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end of February in Geneva. Switzerland. While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector led consensus driven global organization. We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for all future such meetings will be established by this meeting. We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below: Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.” Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to “ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating observers. The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both onsite and remote observers. Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has supported it over the last twelve years. Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum. ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings. It is hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process. We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.
participants (9)
-
Chris Chaplow -
Christopher Martin -
Dirk Krischenowski -
Greg Ogorek -
martinsutton＠hsbc.com -
Michael D. Palage -
Mike O'Connor -
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff