December 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

BC final position on Verisign settlement
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Please find attached the final BC position on the Verisign settlement.

1 0

Fwd: Statement on proposed settlement from ICANN ALAC
by Bret Fausett 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Dear Councilors, Below please find the Communique that the At Large Advisory Committee will deliver to the ICANN Board this afternoon. Bret -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [alac] Statement on proposed settlement from ICANN ALAC Date: 1 Dec 2005 14:17:46 -0800 From: John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> To: settlement-comments(a)icann.org, forum(a)alac.icann.org, "ALAC" <alac(a)icann.org> The ICANN At Large Advisory Committee at a meeting this morning adopted this statement about the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement. Regards, John Levine, ALAC member and document scribe ----------------------------------------------------- Concerns on the proposed ICANN / Verisign settlement from the At-Large Advisory Committee 1 December 2005 1. We believe that it would be more appropriate to separate the lawsuit settlement from the contract renegotiation. If the settlement requires changes to the contract, ICANN and Verisign can amend the current contract to reflect settlement terms. 2. We are concerned about the loss of accountability and oversight both of the community over ICANN and of ICANN over Verisign. The external oversight of ICANN's budget currently provided by the registrars will no longer exist. The settlement provides no meaningful checks on Verisign's behavior, unless they misbehave so badly that ICANN voids their contract. As the registrars have pointed out, the proposed "consensus process" is new and untested. 3. We are concerned about the use and misuse of personal data. Under the agreement, Verisign is allowed to do whatever data mining they want of COM zone usage and access. For example, they could sell DNS traffic data about pepsi.com to Coca Cola, or about greenpeace.com and other political sites to governments whose policies they oppose. As a trustee for the Internet community, ICANN should provide appropriate protections for the community's data. We are also concerned that such data mining would be illegal in countries with data privacy laws. 4. We believe that the proposed price increases for the .COM registry are inappropriate, since the registry is no longer required to offer any justification for them. We are also concerned about the tripling of ICANN's per-domain fee. Although the incremental cost to each individual user will be low, the aggregate cost to users will be in the tens of millions of dollars per year. 5. We are concerned by the lack of economic and legal analysis of the effects of the proposed settlement. To the extent that the .COM registry is a monopoly, it requires stricter regulation than if it is not. Analysis by a qualified economist of the price sensitivity and substitutability of .COM and other domains, based on the extensive historic data, should help understand the situation. Similarly, qualified legal analysis of the likelihood of success of ICANN's and Verisign's suits would help quantify the legal risks and costs the settlement would avoid. Market forces can have an effect on .COM registry prices in two ways: (a) periodic rebids, and (b) a substitute service. The current proposal does away with the rebidding, and we doubt that .BIZ or .INFO or ccTLDs are a substitute for current registrants who already have branded their .COM address. 6. The proposed settlement makes Verisign the permanent source of the majority of ICANN's revenue. By making itself dependent on an entity not accountable to the public, ICANN endangers its independence and hence endangers ICANN's public trust. 7. We share ICANN's concerns with the current budget and planning process, which depends in large part on registrar approval and quarterly financial contributions from numerous sources. We endorse a budget and funding mechanism that would provide ICANN greater certainty in the budget planning process and reduce the administrative burden on ICANN of billing and collections. Nevertheless, we believe very strongly that ICANN should consult with the registrant and At Large community before it fundamentally reshapes its funding mechanism through new contracts with the registries. Ultimately, funds paid to ICANN from registrars or registries come from us, the At Large community. We encourage ICANN to engage the community in a larger conversation about how it should be funded and how its budgets should be created and approved. 8. We are deeply concerned by the lack of transparent process. The current (2001) .COM contract had a specific renewal timeline that has been ignored, since the settlement includes a new contract that would void the current one. ICANN offered no timetable or process for consideration of the proposed settlement until forced to by the CFIT lawsuit. The community does not know whether it has a month or a year to collect its input and offer its advice, nor whether it may be possible to modify the proposed settlement or it simply has to be accepted or rejected. 9. With these considerations in mind, the ALAC advises the board to reject the proposed settlement, to seek qualified advice on the econmic and legal aspects of any proposed settlement, and to seek a settlement that addresses our concerns.

1 0

Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
by Marilyn Cade 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Proposed amendment to BC resolution. I have heard from one or two of you that you would prefer to separate the resolution into two segments. I believe this is easy to do, and can support that. . I urge all constituencies to discuss this resolution. It is the BC intent to call for a supporting vote for the resolution, with the idea of separating the call for the PDP/issues report from the board resolution. -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@icann.org Subject: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec Council members, please find attached from the Bc a proposed draft Council motion on the Verisign settlement. This follows the constituency presentations at the Verisign review meeting and proposes the board delay adoption until the council has considered the GNSO related aspects arising from the settlement. We hope this provides a full day for Constituencies to consider the proposed motion before Council might adopt it. Philip Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

ICANN Publishes WDRP Report
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

[To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] ICANN Publishes Report on Implementation of the Whois Data Reminder Policy (WDRP http://www.icann.org/whois/wdrp-survey-report-30nov05.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Budget Briefing document
by Bruce Tonkin 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/budget-briefing-29nov05.pdf BRIEFING REGARDING OPEN BUDGET ITEMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 The ICANN Board adopted the fiscal year 2005-06 budget at the Luxembourg meeting (see, http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15jul05.htm#p3). The adoption provided that: "the community consultation process has also made it clear that there are categories of expenditures that remain under discussion within the ICANN community, particularly support for the creation of a new non-profit organization to facilitate DNSSEC deployment; spending from segregated funds (with the exception of funding for the Technical Standing Panel, and initiatives on IDN and registry failover); and the establishment of new regional offices," and "the Board Finance Committee is requested to itemize the expenditures in the expense categories still under discussion, including those in Resolution (05.[C]) above in order to ensure that such expenditures will continue only at the run rate from fiscal year 2004-2005 while community discussions continue. " The purpose of this memo is to provide a description in detail of the budget line items frozen at current run rates and, where appropriate, a report on community input regarding those items so that the Board can decide whether to adopt these line items along with the previously adopted budget. This memo recommends approval of those items. As a result of the Board action on the budget, staff has performed three sets of analyses: 1) The burn rates during the last fiscal year. Monthly spending was analyzed to ensure that last year's activity rates can be funded and sustained. 2) Detail explanation for each line item amount under consideration. 3) In the cases of planned expenditures for the two line items for translation and establishment of regional presences, examination of public comment for each line item including meeting transcripts in Luxembourg and Mar del Plata in order to provide an overview of which portions of the community supported or objected to these items. (See Appendices "A" and "B" respectively.) The line items in the current budget (see, http://www.icann.org/financials/adoptedbudget-12aug05.html#EXPENSEREVENU EPROJECTION), currently held to "run rates" by the board vote are spending on: (1) DNSSEC; (2) Translation, (3) At-Large and Community Projects; (4) Regional meetings participation; and (5) Establishing regional presences. These materials were presented to the Board Finance Committee and discussed in the Committee meeting held 28 September 2005. Committee recommendations follow discussion of each line item. A. DNSSEC ========= ========== Description =========== ICANN, along with other contributors, intend to fund a not-for-profit concern that will work to promote, and then implement DNSSEC. Disbursement of funds to a different entity is contingent upon the presentation of the new concern's operating plan and approval by the ICANN board. Line item amount: $300k Run rate: $0 Task Description and Status =========================== This line item falls under the funding for "Stability and Security Projects" in the adopted budget. It falls directly under ICANN's mandate to ensure the ongoing security and stability of the DNS. The formation of this entity has not taken place. Steve Crocker, SSAC Chair, has been providing advice regarding the project, taking advice from others regarding entity formation and precise role. It is expected that the entity will receive sources of funding from others besides ICANN. Discussions with Steve and others indicate the full implementation of DNSSEC will require considerable funding. Regardless of the timing of this planned entity or whether it is determined by staff and Board that this proposed entity is the appropriate mechanism for the deployment of DNNSSEC, this funding is required so that ICANN can take a visibly supportive role in this area. It is important to recognize that DNSSEC efforts are moving ahead, regardless of ICANN's decision to participate. The Sweden TLD has deployed a version of DNSSEC, other groups have formed task forces to study and ultimately implement it. The proposed ICANN contribution in the 2005-06 budget is "the price of admission" to keep ICANN in the visibly supportive role that is required if ICANN is to continue to be recognized as effective. If the Board approves this line item, there are two additional controls in place to ensure reasoned and consensus-based investments are made: * if it is determined that all or much of this $300,000 should be invested in a single effort, the bylaws require that the Board approve that expenditure even after the line item in the budget is approved by the board; and * ICANN staff will consult with Vint, Steve and other technical liaisons to the Board prior to making any investment in this area. Recommendation =============== It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. It is recommended that the Board consult with the Chair, the CEO and the Technical Liaisons in order to gain a full understanding of DNSSEC related issues and ICANN's role. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item, the board request a detailed spending plan for additional approval prior to making major expenditures (exceeding $50,000 per ICANN controls policy) and that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. B. Translation ============== ============== Description =========== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. The ICANN brochure and other materials are now translated into 17 languages. An increased comprehensive translation program has been budgeted for the fiscal year 2005-06 to assist with those stakeholder groups who do not operate in English as their first language. Included will be facilitation of participation at ICANN meetings in multiple languages. Run rate: $75K annually. [$0 was spent in the first quarter of last fiscal year as expenditures were tailored to match the slower than planned revenue increases. $52K was spent during the last three quarters after revenue flow was ascertained, a $75K run rate.] Line item amount: $300K Detailed spending (approximation): ================================== - $100,000 - Outsourced translation services to provide accurate, syntactical translations of ICANN literature; - $50,000 - Outsourced translation services to broadcast real-time translations in the primary regional languages of the key events at ICANN's meetings; - $100,000 - Outsource translation services to provide accurate, syntactical translations of key elements of ICANN's website; - $50,000 - Outsourced translation services to support ICANN efforts with regional media, and with editing, archiving and posting recordings for access by key Internet communities. Task description ================ The MoU with the U.S. Government calls for ICANN to "develop and implement an appropriate and effective strategy for multi-lingual communications." The translation budget of $300,000 will be used to target a variety of Internet stakeholders in each region using some or all of the following mechanisms: - Regional media - providing ICANN information, press briefings, interviews, public service announcements and video news releases in multiple languages to numerous, regionally-based, multi-lingual publications and media outlets; - ICANN literature - including hard copy, CD, and online distribution, in each region in multiple languages, describing ICANN's mission, structure, how to get involved, recent activities and regionally-specific developments, and information of interest to specific constituency groups; - ICANN website - translating principle documents into nine different languages; - Regional ICANN meetings - broadcasting real-time translations in the primary regional languages of ICANN's public forum, Board meetings and other key events, distributing multi-lingual literature to attendees, and conducting multilingual interviews for regional press; - Audio/video archives - maintaining visual and/or audio recordings of various international meetings, seminars and speeches that will be accessible to the international community in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and other languages; - Editing, archiving and posting donated translation services from members of the Internet community to reduce costs and improve utility of materials for key Internet communities. Comments from the community =========================== During both the Luxembourg and Mar del Plata ICANN meetings, translation was addressed in multiple public discussions. In the public forums and during public discussions of ICANN's strategic plan, statements by members of the ICANN community supported increased translation efforts as a critical component to international participation in ICANN. This position was encapsulated in a statement by ICANN consultant, Patrick Sharry, who identified internationalization/translation as the most important issue consistently raised by participants in the strategic planning small group discussions he conducted in Luxembourg: "...Internationalization...came up in a number of ways in a number of those forums. Internationalization in the sense that people wanted ways of working that wasn't in English... That's also to do with the way that business processes are conducted in ICANN, and that's meetings and the documents and translations that might be useful for that.... So I think that that would be the number one issue. " A full listing of community commentary regarding translation can be found in Appendix A. Recommendation ============== Performing translations where economical and meaningful enjoys wide community support. ICANN's first translation efforts of the past fiscal year have indicated that the increased amount planned is reasonable for the effort defined. ICANN has also learned lessons and received offers regarding economical methods to obtain translations. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. C. At Large and Community Projects ================================== ================================== General Description =================== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. At-Large activities include expenses to improve upon the significant progress that has been made on the creation and involvement of ICANN At-Large. As ICANN attempts Regional At-Large Organisations, additional start-up funds are needed. To increase the likelihood of establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, additional ICANN support is required for At-Large organizing/outreach, including staff support to secure the involvement of a significant number of At-Large Structures in each region in ICANN policy activities, and face-to-face interactions at ICANN meetings of At-Large community leaders. Line item amount: $381K Run rate: $188K [The run rate varies from month to month. Higher levels of expenditures are made during the ICANN meetings due to travel expenses. During this period, ALAC will hold activity levels and meeting travel at rates consistent with last year.] Detailed spending: ================== - $133,500 - Development and distribution of informational materials, support for RALO organizing meetings, secretariat support for RALO formation efforts, and in- region staff/consultant services to support At-Large organizing and outreach objectives; - $235,000 - Travel for ALAC members and key At-Large leaders to ICANN meetings to conduct ALAC policy development and outreach activities, and travel for ALAC members and/or At-Large leaders to attend 2 key outreach events in each region; - $12,500 - Administration expenses to support At-Large efforts, including regular conference call meetings. Task description ================ The At-Large and Community Projects budget of $381,000 will be used to build upon the significant progress that has been made in the creation of a global framework of "At-Large" user groups and their involvement in ICANN, including the work of the At-Large Advisory Committee. To increase the likelihood of fully establishing the At-Large framework envisioned in the bylaws, these funds will support: - At-Large organizing and outreach, including staff support to inform and educate the global At-Large community and secure the involvement of a significant number of individual Internet user groups (At-Large Structures) in each region in ICANN; - Community efforts to create Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) (as called for in the bylaws), including support for RALO planning and formation meetings, efforts to develop RALO MoUs and supporting documents, support for At-Large representatives' participation in meetings and events to advance RALO formation and involvement in ICANN issues; - At-Large Advisory Committee policy development and communication efforts, including resources to help the ALAC coordinate with At-Large Structures globally and communicate their activities to the At-Large community, and to support the ALAC's efforts to develop policy advice that promotes individual user community interests. Recommendation ============== ALAC enjoys broad community support. Additional funding is required in order to provide the resources necessary to finalise the formation of RALOs. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. D. Regional Meetings ==================== ==================== General Description =================== This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. ICANN will sponsor attendance at regional meeting for the world's least developed countries. Meetings will include seminars describing IANA services, DNS structure and operations and opportunities available through widespread connectivity and an interoperable Internet. Line item amount: $450K Current run rate: $0 Task description and costing ============================ This line item falls under "Developing Country Internet Community Projects" in the adopted budget. One of ICANN's four key priorities, as reflected in the strategic plan, is to ensure global stakeholder participation. ICANN's work to date in relation to developing country participation has focused on outreach and developing partnerships in respective regions. This work has been well received and will be built upon. This new line item in no way seeks to replace this. However, ICANN's current work has been limited because ICANN has not been able to help sponsor regional meetings and participation therein, nor focus resources to improve the ability for developing countries to participate in ICANN. All efforts to date rely on the resources of others. The budget item proposed is in response to the growing need for ICANN to improve (and increase) developing country awareness the organization and its areas of responsibility, increase participation, and improve ICANN's responsiveness to developing country needs. ICANN is undertaking much work in outreach and building partnerships in different regions. However, ICANN's current work needs to be enhanced with a mechanism to help sponsor and support the world's developing countries participate in regional meetings, and ICANN, within areas of ICANN's mandate. It is not appropriate for ICANN to solely rely on other international organizations (governmental or not) for this. If ICANN fails to continue to improve its developing country outreach and participation work, it will put at risk its own structure and ability to say with credibility that it is working to ensure participation of all stakeholders, from all regions, in particulardeveloping countries. ICANN has not been able in the past to help sponsor regional meetings within the areas of its responsibilities for the world's least developed countries. Nor has it been able to provide resources to help participants from developing countries partake in ICANN. The importance of ensuring participation from all regions, in particular developing countries, is not new. It is reflected, in part, in the MoU between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce (14)(e), where it states that ICANN should "develop a collaborative program with private and intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments and local Internet communities in targeted regions, including key constituencies". Additionally, in discussions on Internet governance, the World Summit on Information Society, and in particular the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), have noted that participation from developing countries is often limited and expensive. [WGIG report, para 19]. The WGIG report specifically noted that there were "two overarching prerequisites to enhance the legitimacy of Internet governance processes," those being: * The effective and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, especially from developing countries. * The building of sufficient capacity in developing countries, in terms of knowledge and of human, financial and technical resources." [Para. 74] The WGIG report furthermore identified a number of priority recommendations, which include in paragraph 82: "Meaningful participation in global policy development: * International organizations, including intergovernmental organizations where relevant, should ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in the determination of policy decisions that affect them, and promote and support such participation. * Specific efforts should be made to address the lack of funds of the different stakeholders of developing countries, which impedes them from actively and consistently participating in international Internet governance processes." ICANN proposes to use the funds to improve developing country participation in two ways: (a) To support, where appropriate in partnership with other organizations, the participation on a rotational basis of developing country participants (government, private sector, technical community, civil society) in ICANN meetings. * Total of approximately US$ 250,000 for 50 developing country participants @ US $5,000 each (the U.N. rate), to attend one of three ICANN meetings. This equates to supporting approximately 16 participants to attend one ICANN meeting (a cost of approximately US$ 83,000 for each meeting). * If possible to do in partnership with other organizations, this could contribute to additional support for participants from developing countries, in particular least developed countries. (b) To regularly hold, where appropriate in partnership with regional governmental and non-governmental organizations, workshops on specific areas of ICANN's responsibility and emerging issue areas. The purpose of these workshops is to: * To better provide information to developing country participants on issues of interest as they relate to ICANN's mandate; * To better understand specific needs of respective developing country regions on their needs from ICANN so ICANN can better ensure full global participation in ICANN's processes and deliverance to all regions of ICANN's work. - Total of approximately US$ 200,000. - Proposing 2 meetings per region @ $20,000 each. For developed country regions, the focus should be on the least developed areas (e.g. North America/Caribbean, focus in Caribbean; for Europe focus is former EasteEurope). - The regional meetings will focus on IANA/ccTLD issues, DNS and other ICANN related issues, of particular interest/concern to the specific region. - The meetings will occur where possible in partnership with other regional events to ensure improved attendance. Funds would go in part to support travel for participants from the developing country, and in part to support the local event. With work in any region it is important to not just 'parachute in', but rather to build partnerships and help build capacity and knowledge that remains in the region. This program aims to do exactly that - focusing on specific regional needs, building local awareness, and delivering to local needs. Also noted is the importance of understanding how things work in respective regions, as well as reaching out to constituencies and partners not yet involved in ICANN. Recommendation ============== For the reasons stated above and the sense of urgency ICANN must bring to this situation, it is recommended that the Board approve this line item. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. E. Regional Presences ===================== ===================== Regarding the establishment of regional presence, there is $40,000 in seed money per location for each of four global regions (Asia-Pacific, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East) to conduct appropriate study in to order to determine the most effective manner in which to effectuate regional presences. The operational study and plan may result in the establishment of an office, the use of existing presence by another entity, periodic meetings or some other form of presence. Line item amount: $200K Current burn rate: $0K Description =========== This expense line item is contained ICANN's Global Partnerships budget and is within the capital expense line item in the published budget. This effort will be supported primarily by the Regional Liaisons and the Global Partnerships General Manger. The budget for regional presences is beyond that of the liaisons; the liaison positions were also included in the prior year's budget. Recruiting for these positions is nearly completed. The original publication of the operational plan indicated that concrete steps were to be taken to establish regional offices in specific locations. After consultation with the community, this objective was modified to use the funds to determine the most effective way to conduct outreach. The original objective: "Establish regional presences, to implement ICANN's outreach to the local Internet community. Retain regional liaisons and in cooperation with outside entities that contribute staff, infra-structure and logistics to establish offices in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Establish regional presences in cooperation with outside entities that provide logistical, staffing or infrastructure support. These presences should provide: * Education in a manner consistent with other objectives, * ICANN operational support so that local stakeholders have a contact point in the same time zone. " Was modified to: "Establish regional presences through the hiring of regional liaisons to implement ICANN's outreach to the local Internet community. These presences should enable local personnel (not ICANN staff) to work with regional populations to bring: * Education in a manner consistent with other objectives, * ICANN operational support so that local stakeholders have a contact point in the same time zone. " As a result of these changes, there was positive feedback from the community. In particular, in the meeting in Luxembourg the follows comments were made in public meetings: "I love how this particular item has been rewritten. As you know, my constituency and myself in particular have been very suspicious of this particular item that sits in the strategic plan. And I think that the input that ICANN, the board and the staff, got for this particular item that appears in the strategic plan has been redrafted and reoriented in a very positive way. I like a lot of the way that things have been reworded here in terms of the liaisons and the way that the emphasis is on presence, the presence in those places." and "I want to express my appreciation for the changes that I see reflected in the overview that's presented here based on the input that you all have received both in Mar del Plata and since then. And I think that we all really ought to say thank you for that and how much we appreciate that." In previous writings and discussions with the community regarding the establishment of regional presences, ICANN has described offers-in-kind to assist in the establishment of offices or presences. These offers have been described in public fora and writings without providing detail. Some of those offers include: Latin America: - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Uruguay and Brazil. Asia Pacific (including Middle East): - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Japan, Singapore, Thailand, India, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Africa: - Offers of support have been received from organizations in Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Mauritius In addition, one country, requesting that it remain confidential, has offered office space, infrastructure, etc. Other countries and organizations have offered aid. Regional presences are also important for all the reasons stated in the section describing Regional Meetings, supra. One of ICANN's four key priorities, as reflected in the strategic plan, is to ensure global stakeholder participation. The regional presence proposal is in response to the growing need for ICANN to improve (and increase) developing country awareness the organization and its areas of responsibility, increase participation, and improve ICANN's responsiveness to developing country needs. The MoU between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce states that ICANN should: "develop a collaborative program with private and intergovernmental parties to conduct outreach to governments and local Internet communities in targeted regions, including key constituencies. " Additionally, in discussions on Internet governance, the World Summit on Information Society, and in particular the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), have noted that participation from developing countries is often limited. Success in both the U.S. Government MoU and in WSIS/WGIG requires outreach in the form of regional presences. The Internet community has told ICANN that before opening offices in any area, ICANN should undertake the study necessary to and enable local entities determine the most efficacious way in which to conduct that outreach. This is what this funding is intended to do. Community feedback =================== There has been substantial discussion in ICANN meetings and in discussion for a posted on the ICANN site. There have been expressions both for and against the establishment of regional offices. There were expressions of appreciation when ICANN altered its objective in this area to use the funding to enable local entities to accomplish outreach. As stated above, several members of the community have made offers of financial or other support to establish regional presence in their area. This is a very strong indication that many who would be directly affected by ICANN regional participation support it. A full listing of community commentary regarding regional presences can be found in Appendix B. Recommendation ============== Nearly every corner of the ICANN community has provided commentary in this area. ICANN has conducted substantial community consultation regarding the implementation of outreach. ICANN has substantially changed its objective regarding regional presences in response to this commentary. The current plan is a conservative approach that engages the outreach "recipient" in the process in order to ensure the outreach is delivered an effective form. It is recommended that the Board approve this line item. The Finance Committee asked that in approving this line item that staff provide periodic reports to the Committee regarding the efficacy of spending after it has been made. F. Conclusion ============= ============= In this analysis, ICANN has set out to provide insight into the thought, planning and detail that went into the budget formulation in these specific instances. Also described is the consultation and feedback ICANN has received from the community on some of these issues. It is recommended that the Board approve these budget line items. In each case the funds will enable required efforts to support ICANN efforts regarding the MoU, WSIS and, most importantly, performing our core mission.

1 0

Election of Ute Decker to the GNSO Council from the IP constituency
by Bruce Tonkin 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

From: Steve Metalitz Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2005 9:51 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: Election of Ute Decker Bruce, Please be advised that the IPC election has concluded and that Ute Decker has been selected to serve as one of our representatives to the GNSO Council for a two-year term, succeeding Niklas Lagergren whose term expires at the end of the Vancouver meeting. Like Nik, Ute is a citizen of the European region. Steve Metalitz IPC President-elect

1 0

Data required for the GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

Hello All, Dr Liz Williams has prepared the following list of questions to gather information for the GNSO review next year. Please feel free to discuss with your constituencies and let Liz know whether additional questions should be asked, or whether these questions are difficult to answer or in the wrong format. Regards, Bruce Tonkin 1. Representativeness Please provide answers to the following questions. 1.1. Provide a copy of the Constituency Charter 1.2. Provide a copy of the Statement of Operating Procedures 1.3. Provide a full list of current (2005) and past (2002-2004) constituency members 1.4. Provide a statement which identifies membership fees and any membership conditions 1.5. Provide a statement of how often the constituency meets; by which method (face to face or teleconference); how minutes are produced; and whether those minutes are publicly available 1.6. Provide a statement which sets out how constituency positions are reached and the voting methods within the constituency (include whether there are weighted voting patterns) 1.7. Fill out the following tables to show demographic statistics on the basis of the full list of constituency members # of Members % of Members Africa Asia/Australia/Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean Islands North America Total: Gender Distribution of Members Gender Distribution of Council Reps Male Female 2. Effectiveness Please provide answers to the following questions. 2.1. Provide a statement showing how the constituency gathers opinions about policy development processes include in particular, how the constituency develops position statements on policy issues 2.2. Provide a statement showing how many issues papers or position papers the constituency has issued since 2003 2.3. How long does it take before GNSO Councillors are presented with a constituency position to give to the GNSO Council 3. Transparency Please provide answers to the following questions. 3.1. Describe the constituency election procedures. For example, how nominations are called for and seconded; how elections are run (on-line or physical meetings) 3.2. Document the candidates for each election and their geographic regions include Nominating Committee representatives) 3.3. Show whether the election results are publicly available

2 1