December 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

Chair election Ballot
by Ross Rader Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

I tried three times to cast my vote telephonically (and my proxy for Maureen). I've since called back in, but rather than interrupt the call, I just wanted to show for the record that I am in favor of the motion to elect Bruce. If it is possible to still include my vote, I would vote in favor for both myself and the proxy that I carry for Maureen. -ross

1 0

A useful document from the past
by Olof Nordling Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Dear all, Just a moment ago, Danny Younger sent a mail to the GA-list with a link to a document from April 2003, compiled by a DNSO committee on request from the Board concerning new gTLD matters. It is not in the "past decisions and documents" overview I put together a few months ago, but it would deserve to be included and certainly deserves reading. Please see: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030410.gTLD.committee.conclusions-v3.html Talk to you soon on the Council call. Best regards Olof

1 0

GNSO Council revised draft minutes 28 Nov. 05
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. Liz Williams has been added to the list of attendees. I apologise for the version that is currently on the Council list, this version will be easier to read. Please let me know what other changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council draft minutes-28 November 05
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held in Vancouver on 28 November 2005. Please let me know what changes you would like made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Comments for the GNSO Council teleconf. 21 Dec.
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 21, 2005

Dec. 21, 2005

Dear fellow Councilors and ICANN POLICY STAFF A few questions for both staff and fellow Councilors: I note that I haven't seen the minutes of our last two meetings. Can you repost, Glen, if the minutes are already available? I also ask whether the staff have been directed to forward the Council's resolution to the Board chair/Board? If not, can that be done shortly? I am concerned that our resolution related to the .com settlement may not be before the Board. I will be driving and on a cell phone during the call, and have given a proxy to Grant Forsyth, then to Philip Sheppard, should I be off the call. Finally, I offer the following proposal for fellow Councilors to consider regarding the gTLDS policy process: The Council should invite all constituencies to prepare their statements for contribution, BUT in ADDITION, and in parallel, other mechanism should be used to inform the policy development process. I describe a recommendation below that I've previously mentioned in less detail. 1) Given that we are losing about two weeks due to holiday, I propose that Council formally announce an extension in the initial comment process to extend it to the end of January. This would give more time to the Constituency statements, and also allow the following process to take place for more input into the policy development process. 2) I propose that Council direct the staff director, Olof Nordling, to manage a process on behalf of Council that would be structured consultation and input into the process. All of our constituencies and the broader community could undoubtedly benefit from the opportunity to hear from experts, rather than just gather opinions or make statements. Thus, I would suggest that the following guidelines be followed [or some modified version developed] 3) The Council should host two phone conferences with the following structure/format. a) Organizations, individuals, and interested parties should be invited to make presentations related to the questions that are contained in the ToR, and provide any other statements that they consider relevant. 20 minute slots would be reserved for anyone who submits a "white paper/PowerPoint" to the Staff Director. NOTE: This would NOT be a place for the Constituency Statements, since those will come into the process anyway, but offers a way to get unique contributions. For instance, outreach to the SSAC, to OECD, etc. might be useful to suggest that they may want to make a "presentation". b) the calls should be transcribed via a conference call transcription service and the transcripts would be posted c) all white papers or PowerPoint presentations would be made available and posted d) Do others think that there should also be 3 - 4 three minute slots at the end of each of the conference calls for "open mike" statements from those who don't bother to submit a white paper/PowerPoint? I would suggest that the presentations be limited to 15 minutes and a 5 minute clarification q and a be allowed. Given the time between here and Wellington, I would suggest that two calls be held, broken into two segments of 2 hours each. It is important to remember the constituencies and the ALAC will have their own consultation process to undertake as well, and thus, if we can do these calls in the early part of January, that would be most helpful. Again, I am proposing that we also recognize that the PDP time frames do not work, especially taking into account the holiday period and we formally extend the time frame now for the preparation of the initial submission of information to the Staff Manager. I also think that Council needs to be very realistic about the need to take extensive input; we may find that we need to have more than one round of input and discussion of the inputs to the questions, for instance. Finally, we need to discuss how best to establish a mechanism to have consultation with the other SOs, and with the GAC and SSAC. As I recall, that is part of our responsibility. We may want to schedule discussion sessions of 1-2 hours in Wellington, for instance. I hope to be on much of the call, but will be driving home and there may be transmission problems. My apologies for any interruption. Marilyn -------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 1: Approval of minutes of 28 Nov 2005 Item 2: Election of GNSO Council chair for period 4 Jan 06 to 3 Dec 2006 - nominations close on Friday 16 Dec 2005 - election to be held during the meeting Item 3: Next steps on new TLD policy development process - public comment period opened on 6 Dec 2005 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm ICANN bylaws section 8: "Procedure if No Task Force is Formed http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA a. If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. b. The Council may also pursue other options that it deems appropriate to assist in the PDP, including appointing a particular individual or organization to gather information on the issue or scheduling meetings for deliberation or briefing. All such information shall be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. c. The Staff Manager will take all Constituency Statements, Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the Comment Site) an Initial Report within fifty (50) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Thereafter, the PDP shall follow the provisions of Item 9 below in creating a Final Report." Item 4: IDN issues report Item 5: Update on initial planning for Wellington meeting -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] 1b Internet Users
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Interesting, isn't it? And the research that I do in internet use, indicates that by 2006, year's end, I in every wo is from China, the second in ten is from India. India will surpass China in population !y 2020, if not a bit earlier, and by 2010, more mobile device (not just cell phones) than "computers". Sensor technology as aggregate of traffic, etc. Etc. Addresses become larger "play", etc. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:28:13 To:council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] 1b Internet Users Some great data to keep in mind during the next few months as we consider the new gTLD and IDN issues. "Some time in 2005, we quietly passed a dramatic milestone in Internet history: the one-billionth user went online. Because we have no central register of Internet users, we don't know who that user was, or when he or she first logged on. Statistically, we're likely talking about a 24-year-old woman in Shanghai. According to Morgan Stanley estimates, 36% of Internet users are now in Asia and 24% are in Europe. Only 23% of users are in North America, where it all started in 1969 when two computers -- one in Los Angeles, the other in Palo Alto -- were networked together. It took 36 years for the Internet to get its first billion users. The second billion will probably be added by 2015; most of these new users will be in Asia. The third billion will be harder, and might not be reached until 2040. " More here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/internet_growth.html -ross Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

Discussion on the "General Assembly" mailing list regarding new TLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Hello All, Glen de Saint Géry has brought to my attention that since the announcement of the new gTLD PDP, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the General Assembly (ga) mailing list. See: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/ The General Assembly was a formal part of the DNSO, the pre-cursor to the GNSO. It no longer formally exists in the new bylaw structure, but the mailing list has been retained. The closest equivalent in recent ICANN meetings is the GNSO public forum, where anyone in the GNSO Community is free to contribute. For some history see: http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnso-app2.html Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Thanks Bret. MC -----Original Message----- From: bfausett(a)internet.law.pro [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:56 PM To: Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January > Would someone please point me to the posting? Thank you. http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm -- Bret

1 0

RE: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

All, I strongly support this view and Bruce's detailed approach to a comprehensive consultation that actually seeks public input on the policy issue itself. Bruce's dual-pronged approach, i.e. - seeking statements from constituencies on what they think the policy should be in response to the terms of reference, - seeking input from the public on what the policy should be ............ is logical. I also support the idea of an online event or discussion of some sort. Marilyn made a very practical suggestion that we draft some specific questions. Then in subsequent e-mails, there was reference to posted questions. Clearly, I am missing something here because I can't find the questions. Would someone please point me to the posting? Thank you. Best regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:49 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] TOR for New gTLDs: Public Comments 6 Dec to 9 January If that is what we want we should make this very clear to the public so that we will reiceive the input we are looking for and not i.e. comments in regard to the TOR itself. Having the public focus on the real policy questions will certainly raise the quality of the comments quite a bit. Best, tom Am 19.12.2005 schrieb Bret Fausett: > So Bruce is correct: we are asking for substantive answers to the > questions posted. These comments will be synthesized into an initial > public comment report that will become part of the PDP record. I know > that the ALAC intends to submit initial comments during this period. > > Bret > > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

2 1

Registrars approve ICANN budget (2005-2006)
by Bruce Tonkin Dec. 20, 2005

Dec. 20, 2005

Hello All, In the public forum of the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver, Paul Twomey reported that registrars had not yet approved being invoiced for the variable registrar accreditation fees which make up the majority of the ICANN budget. The relevant section of the registrars accreditation agreement is shown below: (http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3 ) "3.9.2 Variable Accreditation Fee. Registrar shall pay the variable accreditation fees established by the ICANN Board of Directors, in conformity with ICANN's bylaws and articles of incorporation, provided that in each case such fees are reasonably allocated among all registrars that contract with ICANN and that any such fees must be expressly approved by registrars accounting, in the aggregate, for payment of two-thirds of all registrar-level fees. Registrar shall pay such fees in a timely manner for so long as all material terms of this Agreement remain in full force and effect, and notwithstanding the pendency of any dispute between Registrar and ICANN." Kurt Pritz has notified registrars that as of Friday 16 Dec 05, 142 registrars, representing over 70% of registrar-level fees paid, have expressed their approval (exceeding the two-thirds approval required). Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3