October 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that the meetings are exclusive and not open to all to participate. In fact, I can remember one such meeting where I was kicked out personally. With the introduction of new registry services, we believe that those issues being discussed in a non-open forum raises anti-trust and unfair competition concerns in particular. To reiterate, meetings are fine, but to the extent that groups come together to address issues that can be seen as restricting competition, and the fact that they are exclusive (i.e., not open to all to participate) raises concerns. I am not your counsel, but I would encourage each of you that participate in such meetings to review that concept with your own respective general counsels. The repercussions of participation in such a process could be severe (at least here in the US). -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@cabase.org.ar] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:41 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: jeffrey(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; ebroitman(a)register.com Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings Jeff, The practice of having cross-constituency meetings between the BC, IPC and ISPCP constituencies has been routine over the last couple of years at ICANN meetings. Much as I can romanticize about being a character in a cloak and dagger secretive encounter, the meetings are organized to avoid having certain "leading" topics (and presentations related to these topics from relevant specialists), repeated in three different rooms on the same day, as well as leveraging the various viewpoints that can emerge from a larger group. As far as I know, no other constituency ever indicated any desire to participate, and the meetings have always been announced and everyone has been aware of them. Hope that can ease your misgivings! Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>; <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: <jeffrey(a)icann.org>; <twomey(a)icann.org>; <ebroitman(a)register.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings > Bruce, > > The gTLD Registries Constituency will be participating in the call tomorrow. > I believe Cary will not be in attendance, but that he has given his proxy to > Jordyn and if he is not there, to me. > > However, our earlier concerns and reservations still apply. Our > participating in this call should not be viewed in any way as waiving any of > those concerns or reservations. If we believe that the discussion takes a > turn towards what we believe are anti-competitive or discussions that have > anti-trust implications, we will have no choice but to leave the call. > > In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving openness and > transparency. It has come to our attention that the Business Constituency > has attempted to arrange a private meeting during the Tunisia meeting with > several other constituencies (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, > etc.) to discuss the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services > in general. > > While meetings on ICANN-issues should certainly be encouraged, meetings that > exclude certain groups from participating (including the Registries and the > Noncommercial Constituency) are, in our view, in violation of ICANN's Bylaws > and not in line with the notion of transparency and openness. > > While we see no problem with one constituency having closed meetings to > formulate policy positions and handle internal constituency matters, when > more than one constituency gets together to discuss topics, then those > meetings should be required to be open to all constituencies to attend. This > type of activity goes to the core of our concerns about anti-trust and > unfair competition. > > By this note, I have also put the ICANN General Counsel on notice of our > concerns. I trust that this type of exclusionary practice will not occur at > the Tunisia meeting or any other ICANN-sponsored event. > > Jeff Neuman, > Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency >

1 0

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

Bruce, The gTLD Registries Constituency will be participating in the call tomorrow. I believe Cary will not be in attendance, but that he has given his proxy to Jordyn and if he is not there, to me. However, our earlier concerns and reservations still apply. Our participating in this call should not be viewed in any way as waiving any of those concerns or reservations. If we believe that the discussion takes a turn towards what we believe are anti-competitive or discussions that have anti-trust implications, we will have no choice but to leave the call. In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving openness and transparency. It has come to our attention that the Business Constituency has attempted to arrange a private meeting during the Tunisia meeting with several other constituencies (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, etc.) to discuss the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services in general. While meetings on ICANN-issues should certainly be encouraged, meetings that exclude certain groups from participating (including the Registries and the Noncommercial Constituency) are, in our view, in violation of ICANN's Bylaws and not in line with the notion of transparency and openness. While we see no problem with one constituency having closed meetings to formulate policy positions and handle internal constituency matters, when more than one constituency gets together to discuss topics, then those meetings should be required to be open to all constituencies to attend. This type of activity goes to the core of our concerns about anti-trust and unfair competition. By this note, I have also put the ICANN General Counsel on notice of our concerns. I trust that this type of exclusionary practice will not occur at the Tunisia meeting or any other ICANN-sponsored event. Jeff Neuman, Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency

3 2

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

Participating and being allowed to participate (and observe) are two wholly different concepts. After Thomas cleared up my misunderstanding about the informational session, I believe my question is now geared towards the cross-constituency meeting (with the normal suspects and the Registrars) you are organizing separate and apart from the informational session. With respect to helping with the informational session, I will let the Registries know about the invitation to the group. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:46 AM To: Thomas Roessler; Neuman, Jeff Cc: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)gnso.icann.org; jeffrey(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; ebroitman(a)register.com Subject: RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings I agree with Thomas. Jeff, you had previously indicated that you thought the Registry Constituency may have problems participating on this issue. I take it from your email below that you've reconsidered on that front. Do you want to designate someone to help to organize the informational session, which is certainly intended to be open to all interested parties, as far as I am concerned. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:36 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org; 'jeffrey(a)icann.org'; 'twomey(a)icann.org'; 'ebroitman(a)register.com' Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings On 2003-10-15 09:22:09 -0500, Jeff Neuman wrote: > In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving > openness and transparency. It has come to our attention that the > Business Constituency has attempted to arrange a private meeting > during the Tunisia meeting with several other constituencies > (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, etc.) to discuss > the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services in > general. The meeting that's being planned in cooperation with the ALAC is supposed to be an information and discussion event that is open to the public; there is no interest in excluding any individual constituency. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

1 0

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

I agree with Thomas. Jeff, you had previously indicated that you thought the Registry Constituency may have problems participating on this issue. I take it from your email below that you've reconsidered on that front. Do you want to designate someone to help to organize the informational session, which is certainly intended to be open to all interested parties, as far as I am concerned. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:36 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org; 'jeffrey(a)icann.org'; 'twomey(a)icann.org'; 'ebroitman(a)register.com' Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings On 2003-10-15 09:22:09 -0500, Jeff Neuman wrote: > In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving > openness and transparency. It has come to our attention that the > Business Constituency has attempted to arrange a private meeting > during the Tunisia meeting with several other constituencies > (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, etc.) to discuss > the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services in > general. The meeting that's being planned in cooperation with the ALAC is supposed to be an information and discussion event that is open to the public; there is no interest in excluding any individual constituency. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

1 0

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

That is good to hear. I am sure that notice and invitations will be sent to all appropriate parties for their participation. OK. I was confused. There are two meetings. Yours is open, but according to the following note from Marilyn (See http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00620.html) there is another meeting we have concerns about: "Separately, the Cross Constituency (CC) would like to meet with your constituency to discuss views about wildcards. While we usually meet Tuesday am., I understand that isn't good for you, Accordingly, we could suggest Monday am. if we can jointly work on organizing an hour where whomever is available from our groups can come to meet with you. This is really separate from the public informational workshop, and I hope that is clear." -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:36 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; council(a)gnso.icann.org; 'jeffrey(a)icann.org'; 'twomey(a)icann.org'; 'ebroitman(a)register.com' Subject: Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings On 2003-10-15 09:22:09 -0500, Jeff Neuman wrote: > In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving > openness and transparency. It has come to our attention that the > Business Constituency has attempted to arrange a private meeting > during the Tunisia meeting with several other constituencies > (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the ALAC, etc.) to discuss > the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry services in > general. The meeting that's being planned in cooperation with the ALAC is supposed to be an information and discussion event that is open to the public; there is no interest in excluding any individual constituency. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

1 0

New GNSO Council Reps
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

In accordance with the current By-laws, the gTLD Registries Constituency has elected the following people to serve as the gTLD Representatives on the new GNSO Council after the meeting in Carthage: Cary Karp (Europe) Ken Stubbs (North America) If there is a third rep, our rep will be Jordyn Buchanan (Asia-Pacific). Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neulevel.biz

1 0

RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

I will attend the call/meeting, and will e holding a proxy for Grant. Should I leave the call, I pass my proxy, and Grant's per his instruction to Philip Sheppard. 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:21 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Attendance at Council meetings Hello All, Just a note regarding attendance at Council physical meetings and teleconferences. All council members should notify the GNSO Secretariat if they cannot make a meeting, and all members that cannot make a meeting should assign a council member to hold their proxy. There is no requirement that the proxy be held by a member from the same constituency. In the agenda below there is a motion, and council members that cannot attend should indicate how they wish to vote to their proxy. Note also that we need quorum to make any decisions. Quorum is defined as: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. " The total number of votes held by council members is currently: 27 Thus we need members holding a total of 14 votes to achieve quorum. Note that 6 members hold two votes each. In recent meetings we have had all 6 members holding two votes attend, which has made achieving quorum easy. If for any reason several of those holding two votes each were unable to attend, then the council is reliant most of the other council members attending to achieve quorum. So I urge all council members to use their best endeavours to attend all council meetings to ensure that we have an effective council, and any members that cannot attend should advise the GNSO Secretariat in advance. It will be hard to justify having 3 members per constituency if we do not get regular attendance from all members. Thanks, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 2:59 PM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Subject: Reminder: GNSO Council teleconference > Thursday/Friday 16/17 October > > > REMINDER: > GNSO Council teleconference Thursday/Friday, October 16/17, > 2003 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-16oct03.shtml > > Proposed motion for voting at the Council teleconference > Thursday/Friday 16 / 17 October 2003: > > "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an > Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core > Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable > procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as > defined in the gtld registry agreements)" >

1 0

Attendance at Council meetings
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 15, 2003

Oct. 15, 2003

Hello All, Just a note regarding attendance at Council physical meetings and teleconferences. All council members should notify the GNSO Secretariat if they cannot make a meeting, and all members that cannot make a meeting should assign a council member to hold their proxy. There is no requirement that the proxy be held by a member from the same constituency. In the agenda below there is a motion, and council members that cannot attend should indicate how they wish to vote to their proxy. Note also that we need quorum to make any decisions. Quorum is defined as: "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. " The total number of votes held by council members is currently: 27 Thus we need members holding a total of 14 votes to achieve quorum. Note that 6 members hold two votes each. In recent meetings we have had all 6 members holding two votes attend, which has made achieving quorum easy. If for any reason several of those holding two votes each were unable to attend, then the council is reliant most of the other council members attending to achieve quorum. So I urge all council members to use their best endeavours to attend all council meetings to ensure that we have an effective council, and any members that cannot attend should advise the GNSO Secretariat in advance. It will be hard to justify having 3 members per constituency if we do not get regular attendance from all members. Thanks, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2003 2:59 PM > To: Bruce Tonkin > Subject: Reminder: GNSO Council teleconference > Thursday/Friday 16/17 October > > > REMINDER: > GNSO Council teleconference Thursday/Friday, October 16/17, > 2003 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-16oct03.shtml > > Proposed motion for voting at the Council teleconference > Thursday/Friday 16 / 17 October 2003: > > "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an > Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core > Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable > procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as > defined in the gtld registry agreements)" >

1 0

Carthage ICANN meeting schedule update
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 14, 2003

Oct. 14, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Please note the recent additions to the Carthage ICANN meeting schedule. http://www.icann.org/carthage/ GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 13, 2003

Oct. 13, 2003

Hello Jeff, > > > I think the statement is pretty clear. Even discussions > regarding a policy development process (from those in the > community that could be compeititors (i.e., registrars, ISPs, > other businesses, etc.)) on new registry services has > implications on competition from a legal standpoint. Just a reminder that the GNSO Council successfully completed a policy development process for transfers which is at its core a competition issue between registrars. The inclusion of members of council that are not registrars, along with extensive public comment processes, ensured that this process was handled without bias. > > It is for this reason that we are requesting a formal legal > opinion from ICANN's general counsel on this issue and are > also obtaining our own legal advice from our own counsels. > That is the purpose of the issues report - it is a formal opinion from the ICANN staff and General counsel. The correct process is to raise issues that we would like addressed within the issues report. Regards, Bruce

1 0