January 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

PRE-REGISTRATION FOR ICANN APRIL MEETING
by Anthony Harris 31 Jan '05

31 Jan '05

Dear colleagues; ICANN has established the link to the local host website for the meeting in Mar del Plata (Argentina) on April 4-8th. Please see: http://www.icann.org/meetings/mardelplata/ The agenda is posted, and you can also pre-register if you wish to. Please let me know if you need any type of assistance with your travel arrangements. Best regards Tony Harris CABASE

1 0

Amsterdam Consultation on the Strategic Plan & hotel booking info
by gnso.icann 30 Jan '05

30 Jan '05

Please find attached the proposed agenda for the Amsterdam Consultation on the Strategic Plan being held at the Sheraton Airport Hotel on 7-8 February 2005. Reminder about the hotel bookings for the Amsterdam meeting at the special rate. Please use the url below and follow the instructions. Attendee ICANN (click here or cut/paste the following into a browser) http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/StarGroupsWeb/res?id=0501276565&key=4CDE9 GNSO Secretariat

1 0

MEETING IN ARGENTINA
by Anthony Harris 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Dear colleagues, With regards to the upcoming ICANN meeting in Mar del Plata (Argentina) April 4-8th., we have been advised by ICANN that a link from the ICANN website to the local host organization site ( www.icannmardelplata.com ) will be implemented shortly. Since some of you may be needing this information in order to make your travel arrangements, I thought it might be useful to mention this. FYI the venue hotel (Sheraton) is totally booked already, and the second best choice (Costa Galana Hotel) which is 700 mtrs away is rapidly filling up. Please let me know if you need any assistance. Best regards to all Tony Harris Executive Director CABASE www.cabase.org.ar Tel. 54-11-4326-0777

1 0

Registry constituency statement on the GNSO Council review
by Bruce Tonkin 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Hello All, The following comments were submitted by the Registries constituency. Regards, Bruce Tonkin gTLD Registry Constituency Comments re. GNSO Council Review January 24, 2004 gTLD Registries Constituency welcomes the Independent GNSO Council Review. The following text summarizes gTLD registry constituency views concerning the subject. We also enclose detailed comments and questions raised during our deliberations. 1. PDP Timelines We support the conclusion of the report that changes are needed in PDP timelines. The timelines chosen for the GNSO PDP process do not address the differences in the issues that are considered by the GNSO although the overall process clearly provides the framework for the needed evaluation and consideration. Timelines should be set that are realistic and predictable. It is critical that a timeline for each of the activities be set as part of the process so that the businesses and various constituencies that must react to the PDP have a stable and predictable process for evaluation of critical items. Any item that does not fit within these guidelines should likely be re-evaluated to ensure that the issue is discrete enough that determination whether a consensus can be reached is possible within the PDP timeframe. It is important that timeframes be adhered to so that ICANN constituencies are not placed in an untenable business position by a never-ending PDP related to a critical business process. 2. Constituency Feedback Although the GNSO tries to solicit Constituency Feedback on various topics, the timeframes provided are often inadequate and do not coincide with timeframes where representatives will have adequate time to solicit and receive input from their constituency members. It is important that constituency feedback is required at each time and in full scope as defined in the bylaws. 3. Outreach on Public Comment The GNSO should be more effective in publicizing their desire for public comment on specific topics. Outreach efforts should be documented and evaluated to see what outreach was effective and which was not as productive and then this information should be used the next time. Comment should be solicited from both within and outside of ICANN groups. It is important to select the right channels and explain possible impact to those impacted parties which may be less familiar with ICANN process. This is not necessarily an easy problem to solve but is one that is critical to ensure legitimacy of the policy development process. 4. PDP Content The PDP should be sure to include any information about dissenting opinions in any constituency statement, including detailed information on voting as detailed in the ICANN bylaws. 5. Constituency Representativeness We welcome and support the recommendation to include the issue of representativeness in the review of the GNSO as a whole. 6. Consensus We wish to make an additional recommendation. The Council should recognize that it will not always be possible to reach consensus on an issue and that that is as valuable an outcome in the process as reaching consensus. It is unrealistic to expect that consensus will always be possible in the hugely diverse and global world of the Internet. Moreover, when a 'no consensus' conclusion is reached, that can be a good indicator that it is an opportunity to let market forces work to sort out the issues and thereby let users make their own buying decisions rather than regulating them. 7. Number of Council Representatives per Constituency We support recommendation 19 that "the Board should change the bylaws to put in place three representatives from each constituency." Specific comments concerning the review of the document raised by members of the constituency 3. PDP timelines. Are the timelines relevant? P.11, 2nd paragraph: "Interviews with those who were involved in the creation of the PDP process suggest that the timelines were always seen as best intentions or stretch targets rather than hard and fast rules." This statement may not be accurate. It does not appear that the PDP process in the ICANN Bylaws was written with this intention. Further, the "best intentions or stretch targets" approach could put registries and other stakeholders in a possibly untenable business situation. Running a registry business at the whims of the GNSO Council can make it impossible to be innovative and respond in a timely manner to customer needs. Having the same timelines for all PDP processes is not the answer because they will not all be the same, but some clear outside limits seem necessary. This particular issue is one that is somewhat ironic because we as a constituency, through our representative Rita Rodin, tried to get the timelines lengthened because we knew that they would be very unrealistic in some cases; unfortunately, we were rebuffed in that regard. Within the timelines, it is possible that a Simple and Complex timeframe could be developed and that the initial establishment of the PDP would identify the timeframe to be used. P.11, 4th paragraph: "Although the timelines have not been kept in most cases, there are pieces of work where the timelines have proved realistic. This has been in cases where issues were not too complex and determining views of constituencies was all that was required of the Council. An example of this is the .net proposal which, while not a formal PDP, did follow the PDP process and was completed within the suggested timelines." This conclusion with regard to the .net criteria work by the Council is false and details regarding missed deadlines were publicly communicated in a posting by VeriSign at http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf. Here is a lengthy quote from that posting, illustrating not only missed deadlines but other areas where the PDP process was not followed: [BEGIN VERISIGN QUOTE] "Specific cases where the PDP procedures were not followed are listed here in summary (without limitation) and described in further detail in Appendix B, citing the applicable section from the ICANN Bylaws, Annex A: * Section 2 describes the process by which an Issue Report shall be created, its scope, required deadlines, and purpose. We note, at a minimum, the following deficiencies: (1) The request of ICANN staff was sent to the GNSO Council 25 days after Board action instead of the required 15 days; (2)There is no evidence that the required Issue Report, containing even the minimum information and instruction required by Section 2, was created or transmitted to the GNSO Council; and (3)The request sent to the GNSO Council was not accompanied by an opinion of the ICANN General Counsel. * Section 4 (and by reference Sections 7 and 8) describe the manner in which a PDP shall be initiated. We note, at a minimum, the following deficiencies: (1) We have not been able to locate any public posting of the minutes of the GNSO Council meeting that allegedly took place on 1 April 2004 authorizing the creation of the "Subcommittee" notwithstanding the fact that under the Bylaws those minutes should have been posted by 22 April; and (2) There does not appear to be any public record of a vote by the Council. Sections 5-7 describe the composition and selection of task forces, their role and the collection of information, and the public notification of the PDP. We note, at a minimum, the following deficiencies: * Section 5 (1) There appeared to be a lack of involvement of the ICANN Staff Manager; and (2) There appeared to be a lack of transparency in requesting appointment of representatives to the Subcommittee. * Section 6 (1) The first request for public comment did not occur upon initiation of the PDP but rather 57 days later. * Section 7(b) (1) There is no evidence of a charter created by the GNSO Council; and (2) No specific directions to the "Subcommittee" were published by the GNSO Council or any specific guidelines developed to assure that the Subcommittee does not deviate from instructions of the GNSO Council. * Section 7(d) (1) The one constituency statement received failed to contain even the minimum disclosures required by Section 7(d) for the Subcommittee's consideration of those statements (i.e., voting results, how the constituency arrived at its position in the statement, dissenting or opposing positions of constituency members to the position submitted as the consensus position in the constituency statement, any analysis of time or impact on the constituency, etc.). * Section 7(e) (1) The GNSO Subcommittee draft, if intended as a Preliminary Report as specified in the Bylaws, does not contain most of the disclosures or information required; and (2) None of the following dates were met: § The Preliminary Report was due not later than 12 May. § A Final Report was due not later than 17 May. § The Final Report was supposed to be posted by 22 May. § The GNSO Council should have called for a meeting of the full Council to consider the Final Report by 2 June, 2004. Section 8 describes the procedure if no task force is formed. We note at a minimum, the following deficiencies: * Section 8 (1) GNSO constituencies did not appoint representatives within 10 days; (2) Representatives generally did not solicit comments from their constituencies; (3) Constituency statements were only received from one constituency, and that statement was wholly deficient in that it is reasonable to assume that statements received by the GNSO Council should contain disclosures similar to those required of constituency statements submitted to a task force; and (4) The ICANN Staff Manager did not compile an Initial Report and post it within 50 days of the PDP initiation." [END VERISIGN QUOTE] P.12, 1st full paragraph: "One feature of the PDP that has worked well is the outreach of Council within the GNSO. For all of the policy issues addressed by Council, Council members were able to consult with their constituencies and report back with a constituency position. Constituency reports as required by the PDP exist for all issues." Is it actually true that all constituencies submitted reports on all issues? If not, that point should be made clear. It is also questionable whether "For all of the policy issues addressed by Council, Council members were able to consult with their constituencies and report back with a constituency position." There seem to be multiple instances where Council members had limited time to consult with their constituencies. In fact, the last sentence of this paragraph seems to confirm this: "Preparing these within the timeframe suggested by the PDP has not been unrealistic." The GNSO should review the means and the timeframes by which the representatives can provide the needed statements and include that in decisions on the PDP timeframes and other requests for input. This should also take into account calendar events that might require extension of the timeframes such as year-end or other periods where the volunteers that make up the bulk of those working on constituency statements will be unavailable for these activities. P.12, 3rd full paragraph: "Another aspect of the PDP that seems to be working well is the public comment period which allows anyone who is interested to comment on reports when they are issued." It is accurate to conclude that opportunity for public comment is always provided. It is not clear though that this is sufficient without more outreach to impacted parties. It seems unreasonable to assume that simply posting documents for comment through normal ICANN channels should be expected to generate comments from the broader community of stakeholders on particular issues. The small number of comments received and the sources of those comments may be evidence of this because most comments have been from groups heavily involved in ICANN activities with very few coming from other groups. This is not necessarily an easy problem to solve but is one that is very important if the policy development process is ever going to be one that becomes one that is more than just an "insiders" process. To the extent that ICANN constituencies are representative of the broader community, this would be less of a concern but, even it that were the case, documentation of the adequacy of the representativeness with regard to a particular issue should be included as part of each report. Outreach efforts of the Council should also be documented for each issue to include measures of success of that outreach such as identification of impacted parties, description of outreach efforts to those parties, measures of response, etc. In cases where outreach does not generate expected response, that should be documented to at least show that the opportunity was given. P.12, 5th full paragraph: "Changes are needed to the PDP timelines. There is a need to formalize current practice, not least to ensure that the GNSO operates in accordance with its own bylaws and procedures. The structure of the PDP needs to be maintained, but it needs to acknowledge that different policy issues require different types of work and therefore different timeframes." The conclusions made in this paragraph appear to be reasonable and the recommendations following the paragraph are consistent with the conclusions but do not go far enough as noted in the next three comments. Pp.12-13, Recommendation 5: "The Council should seek approval from the Board for a revised policy Development Process. The alternative process should have the following elements: Scoping phase (history of the issue, key questions, contractual issues, terms of reference, timelines, milestones including deliverables and check points for legal opinion) which should be done as quickly as feasible, probably within the timeframe of the current issues report; Policy work (including research, consultation with constituencies, periods for public comment) with timelines set in the scoping phase according to the complexity of the task; Regular reporting to Council on milestones as established in the scoping phase; A final report and public comment period as in the current PDP; A Council vote as in the current PDP." The scoping phase should also include identification of impacted parties and how best to reach out to them. The policy work should include consultation with representatives of impacted organizations and/or individuals not usually part of ICANN processes. The final report should include documentation of each step of the process with measurable data demonstrating the extent of consensus or lack thereof as the ICANN Bylaws PDP process requires: "1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote position of the task force on the issue; 2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position; 3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the constituency; 4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; and 5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest." To support the final report data required, constituency statements and statements from parties outside of ICANN should be required to include similar data relative to their organizations. A helpful way to ensure this happens each time input is solicited would be to provide templates that outline the major elements required for each type of submission. This would not only ensure that all needed information is received but would also make it easier for submitters to prepare their input. P.13, Recommendation 6: "The Council should develop a formal process for seeking input from other ICANN organizations for each of the policies it is developing." This should be extended to include input from organizations outside of ICANN when applicable. As noted above, to ensure required completeness of submissions from various stakeholders and to make it easier for them to respond, we recommend that templates be developed and provided that outline the major elements required for each type of submission. Other issues P.22, 1st paragraph: "One issue which come up in many of the interviews was concern about the representativeness of the constituencies. Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the constituency representatives and members were concerned that constituencies other than their own were not truly representative of the groups that they claim to represent. This issue is beyond the scope of this review which is focused on the GNSO Council, not the GNSO as a whole. It is however, an extremely significant issue. The review of the GNSO as a whole will need to investigate whether each of the constituencies is truly representative of "the interests globally of the stakeholder communities it purports to represent" as required in the bylaws." The GNSO and previously the DNSO was never intended to be a legislative body but rather an organization to facilitate the DNS policy development process. As such that process must be as inclusive as possible and should avoid the capture of the process by small groups of involved participants. To the extent that ICANN constituencies are indeed representative of the groups they claim to represent, there are increased chances that the broader community will be served well and that capture will not occur. Therefore, it is appropriate that a review of this issue be included in a review of the GNSO as a whole.

1 0

Amsterdam Strategic Plan meeting
by Grant Forsyth 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Dear Paul and Kurt I spent the weekend re-reading the Strategic Plan and would like to offer you and your staff a thanks and congratulations on making it an accessible and readable document. Having read through the Strategic plan again, it occured to me that it would be highly desirable to explicitly tie in the requirements of the MOU. While through my reading I can see where particular planned initiatives relate to MOU requirements, there is not explicit linkage between the two - well not that I can detect. I think it would be helpful to receive from the staff a document that simply lists next to each paragraph of the MOU those Strategic Plan initiatives/sections that relate to it and that will ensure that the demands of the MOU are met. Or alternately, against each Strategic Plan initiative, list those sections of the MOU that will be addressed by that specific Strategic Plan initiative. Additionally it would be useful for the meeting to be provided with an up to date status - done, current, and future - (in bullet form would do for me) of meeting the needs of the MOU. It would be good to receive this some days prior to the Amsterdam meeting. I am hoping this request is not too onerous as I imagine that the work has already done and may exist in another report/document already. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Kind regards Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759

2 1

GNSO website
by gnso.icann 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Dear Councillors, Regarding recommendation 20 of the GNSO Council review: The GNSO Council should overhaul the website so that it better meets the needs of all who are interested in the work of the GNSO. In an effort to improve the website, it would be most useful to have an idea of what your requirements are for the website. Perhaps the following headings may help focus your comments: 1. Structure - do the custom constituency pages help or hinder? 2. Navigation - how can it be improved on the ICANN web site in general? Can you easily get what you want from the GNSO home page? 3. Content - should there be a simpler menu for basic information on ICANN on the ICANN home page? And a similar menu for the GNSO home page? 4. Accessibility - do you ever have connectivity problems? 5. New Ideas - is there content missing? If so what? Your comments would be greatly appreciated if possible by 12 February 2005. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

Meeting to develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan
by gnso.icann 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

[To : council[at]gnso.icann.org ;liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] The meeting to develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan, is being held at the: Sheraton Amsterdam Airport Hotel & Conference Center Schiphol Boulevard 101 Amsterdam Netherlands 1118 Phone (31) (20) 316 4300 Fax (31) (20) 316 4399 Website http://www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton/search_detail.html?propertyID=301 If you are planning to attend, please make your own booking. It would be helpful if you let me know at the same time as having an idea of the numbers will facilitate the planning. Thank you very much. Kind regards, -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT - CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICA NN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005
by Grant Forsyth 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Marilyn and Glen Happy to assist as I am able from such a distance A simple question Have we settled on a hotel and are you guys going to hold a certain number of accommodation rooms or do we book direct - either way, can you let us know so that people can get bookings made Thanks Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759 -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 09:12 To: Gnso. Secretariat; GNSO Council Cc: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; Bruce Tonkin; Kurt Pritz; Paul Verhoef; Barbara Roseman; Denise Michel; Mark McFadden Subject: [council] MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT - CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005 Dear colleagues, I would welcome hearing from other Councilors who might join a small planning team all to advance finalizing of the provisional agenda, noted below. Please reply offlist to me, and to Glen regarding your interest. I've already had a volunteer or two and greatly appreciate those offers of planning and organizing assistance. Regarding the meeting notice: Glen will be posting this notice to the liaison list. If you can also encourage distribution within your constituencies, that would be much appreciated. Please email me and Glen with questions. We are still finalizing with the hotel arrangements, but want to advance the program agenda as well as quickly as possible. Regards, Marilyn Cade ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Meeting to develop comments on ICANN Strategic Plan Amsterdam, 7-8 February 2005 The presently posted ICANN Strategic Plan outlines the strategic directions for ICANN for a three year period. Like all strategy documents, it needs to be analyzed and understood in conjunction with other relevant documents, such as the ICANN budget. It provides insight into changes in ICANN's scope, scale, funding base, and activities. It helps to position ICANN for a post-WSIS and post-MOU world with an increased budget, regional offices, an extensive workshop initiative, and outreach activities to developing countries. Other changes include a proposed shift of funding from reliance on registrars as the primary aggregators of funds to a more centralized collection via the registries, with an increase in the amount of money collected per domain name, in order to provide a stable foundation for ICANN. The Strategic Plan, as drafted, creates the same kind of scope and scale of change that the Evolution and Reform Process did, and deserves full consideration and review by the community. MEETING NOTICE The gNSO Council has approved the organization of a meeting to develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan by interested attendees from the constituencies. The meeting may also include guests from the At Large, other SOs or the community who have indicated an interest in attending. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that the constituencies of the gNSO/liaisons have an opportunity to review, analyze, and develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan. This meeting does not replace the opportunity for any individual, or any constituency to post ongoing comments during the ICANN public comment process. www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html <http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html> -- this link provides information on the Strategic Plan, and how to submit individual comments. NOTE: Comments are due February 28, 2005. The ICANN staff has also indicated their plans to offer teleconferences with each constituency, and this meeting is not intended to replace that consultation. Details of the Meeting: February 7-8, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sheraton at the Airport. Provisional Agenda: Monday, February 7: 1:00 p.m. - 5.30pm. Overview of Strategic Plan by ICANN staff Presentation/Comments by scheduled contributors Open Mike for participants for further comments Adjourn Small volunteer teams to work Monday evening to synthesize comments received. Tuesday, February 8, 8:30-12:30 p.m. 8:45 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Presentation of comments received/contributions from Monday's session by small working teams. 10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Consolidation of contributions. 12:30 p.m. Adjourn Space is presently scheduled for 50-60 attendees for both meetings, on a first-come, first-served basis. We will make reasonable efforts to address additional requests to attend, should we have over-subscription. You can register for the meeting by sending an email to Glen de St. Gery, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> . Be sure to indicate which day/or both that you will attend. If you cannot attend in person, but want to dial in, please advise Glen of which days you will want to participate. We expect to offer dial in on 2/7 for the portion of the meeting that involves presentations and are exploring dial in for February 8 in terms of ensuring that remote participants can hear effectively and participate. If you would like to prepare a submission or comments to present during Day One of the meeting, please let Glen know. There will be a deadline for submitting at least an outline of your talking points if you wish to make a presentation, so that the schedule can be managed, and materials posted to those who are participating remotely. Contributions in this segment on day 1 can be short statements, proposals for changes in particular segments of the Strategic Plan; or suggestions on how to achieve a particular outcome described in the Strategic Plan. Comments from the participants in attendance will be accommodated as well, but to have the full scope of your contribution understood and incorporated, providing written comments will help those attempting to capture your contribution and incorporate it. For purpose of finalizing the agenda and plans, a small group of councilors from the gNSO are working together. You can provide comments and suggestions to them by emailing the gNSO Secretariat, as noted above. We look forward to seeing you in Amsterdam. Marilyn Cade

2 1

RE: CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FE BRUARY 7-8, 2005
by Grant Forsyth 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Alick Happy New Year. I support your proposition that NomCom'ers should be able to attend the meeting and that ICANN funding should be provided to enable them to do so. Unfortunately, I have no input to whatever policy decision underlies that decision. And for an update, I am no longer on the NomCom as I have participated for the maximum 2 year term. Regards Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759 -----Original Message----- From: Alick Wilson [mailto:alick.wilson@xendra.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 13:03 To: 'GNSO Council'; Grant Forsyth; 'Diane Schroeder' Subject: CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005 Colleagues In order that NomCom appointees have the opportunity to contribute to what I think is a very important meeting, I believe funding for travel and accommodation should be provided by ICANN for those NomCom appointees to GNSO Council who are able to attend and make a contribution. Budget should not be an issue; as I was unable to attend the Capetown meeting, there should be sufficient money left in the budget. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend in person because of prior commitments in New Zealand, so this request is on behalf of Demi and Maureen, and to determine a precedent for any future ad hoc meetings. Grant, as a member of NomCom can you arrange for advice on policy implications, if any? Diane, can you advise on budgetary implications? Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2005 9:12 a.m. To: Gnso. Secretariat; GNSO Council Cc: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; Bruce Tonkin; Kurt Pritz; Paul Verhoef; Barbara Roseman; Denise Michel; Mark McFadden Subject: [council] MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT - CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005 Dear colleagues, I would welcome hearing from other Councilors who might join a small planning team all to advance finalizing of the provisional agenda, noted below. Please reply offlist to me, and to Glen regarding your interest. I've already had a volunteer or two and greatly appreciate those offers of planning and organizing assistance. Regarding the meeting notice: Glen will be posting this notice to the liaison list. If you can also encourage distribution within your constituencies, that would be much appreciated. Please email me and Glen with questions. We are still finalizing with the hotel arrangements, but want to advance the program agenda as well as quickly as possible. Regards, Marilyn Cade ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Meeting to develop comments on ICANN Strategic Plan Amsterdam, 7-8 February 2005 The presently posted ICANN Strategic Plan outlines the strategic directions for ICANN for a three year period. Like all strategy documents, it needs to be analyzed and understood in conjunction with other relevant documents, such as the ICANN budget. It provides insight into changes in ICANN's scope, scale, funding base, and activities. It helps to position ICANN for a post-WSIS and post-MOU world with an increased budget, regional offices, an extensive workshop initiative, and outreach activities to developing countries. Other changes include a proposed shift of funding from reliance on registrars as the primary aggregators of funds to a more centralized collection via the registries, with an increase in the amount of money collected per domain name, in order to provide a stable foundation for ICANN. The Strategic Plan, as drafted, creates the same kind of scope and scale of change that the Evolution and Reform Process did, and deserves full consideration and review by the community. MEETING NOTICE The gNSO Council has approved the organization of a meeting to develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan by interested attendees from the constituencies. The meeting may also include guests from the At Large, other SOs or the community who have indicated an interest in attending. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that the constituencies of the gNSO/liaisons have an opportunity to review, analyze, and develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan. This meeting does not replace the opportunity for any individual, or any constituency to post ongoing comments during the ICANN public comment process. www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html <http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html> -- this link provides information on the Strategic Plan, and how to submit individual comments. NOTE: Comments are due February 28, 2005. The ICANN staff has also indicated their plans to offer teleconferences with each constituency, and this meeting is not intended to replace that consultation. Details of the Meeting: February 7-8, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sheraton at the Airport. Provisional Agenda: Monday, February 7: 1:00 p.m. - 5.30pm. Overview of Strategic Plan by ICANN staff Presentation/Comments by scheduled contributors Open Mike for participants for further comments Adjourn Small volunteer teams to work Monday evening to synthesize comments received. Tuesday, February 8, 8:30-12:30 p.m. 8:45 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Presentation of comments received/contributions from Monday's session by small working teams. 10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Consolidation of contributions. 12:30 p.m. Adjourn Space is presently scheduled for 50-60 attendees for both meetings, on a first-come, first-served basis. We will make reasonable efforts to address additional requests to attend, should we have over-subscription. You can register for the meeting by sending an email to Glen de St. Gery, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> . Be sure to indicate which day/or both that you will attend. If you cannot attend in person, but want to dial in, please advise Glen of which days you will want to participate. We expect to offer dial in on 2/7 for the portion of the meeting that involves presentations and are exploring dial in for February 8 in terms of ensuring that remote participants can hear effectively and participate. If you would like to prepare a submission or comments to present during Day One of the meeting, please let Glen know. There will be a deadline for submitting at least an outline of your talking points if you wish to make a presentation, so that the schedule can be managed, and materials posted to those who are participating remotely. Contributions in this segment on day 1 can be short statements, proposals for changes in particular segments of the Strategic Plan; or suggestions on how to achieve a particular outcome described in the Strategic Plan. Comments from the participants in attendance will be accommodated as well, but to have the full scope of your contribution understood and incorporated, providing written comments will help those attempting to capture your contribution and incorporate it. For purpose of finalizing the agenda and plans, a small group of councilors from the gNSO are working together. You can provide comments and suggestions to them by emailing the gNSO Secretariat, as noted above. We look forward to seeing you in Amsterdam. Marilyn Cade

3 3

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT - CONSTITUTENCY MEETING ON ICANN STRATEGIC PLAN - AMSTERDAM, FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005
by Marilyn Cade 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

Dear colleagues, I would welcome hearing from other Councilors who might join a small planning team all to advance finalizing of the provisional agenda, noted below. Please reply offlist to me, and to Glen regarding your interest. I've already had a volunteer or two and greatly appreciate those offers of planning and organizing assistance. Regarding the meeting notice: Glen will be posting this notice to the liaison list. If you can also encourage distribution within your constituencies, that would be much appreciated. Please email me and Glen with questions. We are still finalizing with the hotel arrangements, but want to advance the program agenda as well as quickly as possible. Regards, Marilyn Cade ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Meeting to develop comments on ICANN Strategic Plan Amsterdam, 7-8 February 2005 The presently posted ICANN Strategic Plan outlines the strategic directions for ICANN for a three year period. Like all strategy documents, it needs to be analyzed and understood in conjunction with other relevant documents, such as the ICANN budget. It provides insight into changes in ICANN's scope, scale, funding base, and activities. It helps to position ICANN for a post-WSIS and post-MOU world with an increased budget, regional offices, an extensive workshop initiative, and outreach activities to developing countries. Other changes include a proposed shift of funding from reliance on registrars as the primary aggregators of funds to a more centralized collection via the registries, with an increase in the amount of money collected per domain name, in order to provide a stable foundation for ICANN. The Strategic Plan, as drafted, creates the same kind of scope and scale of change that the Evolution and Reform Process did, and deserves full consideration and review by the community. MEETING NOTICE The gNSO Council has approved the organization of a meeting to develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan by interested attendees from the constituencies. The meeting may also include guests from the At Large, other SOs or the community who have indicated an interest in attending. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that the constituencies of the gNSO/liaisons have an opportunity to review, analyze, and develop comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan. This meeting does not replace the opportunity for any individual, or any constituency to post ongoing comments during the ICANN public comment process. www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan.html -- this link provides information on the Strategic Plan, and how to submit individual comments. NOTE: Comments are due February 28, 2005. The ICANN staff has also indicated their plans to offer teleconferences with each constituency, and this meeting is not intended to replace that consultation. Details of the Meeting: February 7-8, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sheraton at the Airport. Provisional Agenda: Monday, February 7: 1:00 p.m. - 5.30pm. Overview of Strategic Plan by ICANN staff Presentation/Comments by scheduled contributors Open Mike for participants for further comments Adjourn Small volunteer teams to work Monday evening to synthesize comments received. Tuesday, February 8, 8:30-12:30 p.m. 8:45 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. Presentation of comments received/contributions from Monday's session by small working teams. 10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Consolidation of contributions. 12:30 p.m. Adjourn Space is presently scheduled for 50-60 attendees for both meetings, on a first-come, first-served basis. We will make reasonable efforts to address additional requests to attend, should we have over-subscription. You can register for the meeting by sending an email to Glen de St. Gery, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Be sure to indicate which day/or both that you will attend. If you cannot attend in person, but want to dial in, please advise Glen of which days you will want to participate. We expect to offer dial in on 2/7 for the portion of the meeting that involves presentations and are exploring dial in for February 8 in terms of ensuring that remote participants can hear effectively and participate. If you would like to prepare a submission or comments to present during Day One of the meeting, please let Glen know. There will be a deadline for submitting at least an outline of your talking points if you wish to make a presentation, so that the schedule can be managed, and materials posted to those who are participating remotely. Contributions in this segment on day 1 can be short statements, proposals for changes in particular segments of the Strategic Plan; or suggestions on how to achieve a particular outcome described in the Strategic Plan. Comments from the participants in attendance will be accommodated as well, but to have the full scope of your contribution understood and incorporated, providing written comments will help those attempting to capture your contribution and incorporate it. For purpose of finalizing the agenda and plans, a small group of councilors from the gNSO are working together. You can provide comments and suggestions to them by emailing the gNSO Secretariat, as noted above. We look forward to seeing you in Amsterdam. Marilyn Cade

2 1