August 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] RE: GNSO Review
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

Hello Grant, > I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and > making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of > the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, > consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU). I agree that it will be important to have a clear statement of the GNSO's purpose, and perhaps some examples of what has been done within that purpose to set the background when asking review questions. While I suspect that members of individual constituencies may understand the purpose of their own constituency - they may not understand the wider context within which the constituency operates. When you talk to people outside of the GNSO constituencies the level of understanding is probably even lower. I would suggest that the relevant section of the current bylaws be summarised, and perhaps it would also be useful to retrieve material from the formation of ICANN where the constituency structure was first proposed. The most recent ICANN reform process that occurred a few years ago - was more focused on the structure of the Board, and structure of the Councils, but did not delve down into the structure/efficiencies of the constituencies themselves - so much of the thoughts that led to the formation of the original constituencies (and there have been no changes in the number of constituencies) probably dates back to early documents in the formation of ICANN. Some members of Council may be able to assist by providing references to the Council list of appropriate documents. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

RE: [council] Procedure for requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

Note that public comments from the web based public comment forum on the initial report were included in the final report that went to Council. See Section 2.2 of the Report. Of course any other public comments that were made during the GNSO public forum held in Luxembourg, should also be included. It is probably also worth including an extract of the minutes from the GNSO Council meeting in Luxembourg where John Jeffrey as General Counsel answered some questions with respect to whether competition agencies had been consulted about the proposed process. Regards, bruce ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 11:27 AM To: olof.nordling(a)icann.org; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Procedure for requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry Dear Olof, thanks for this initial draft. I will review tonight. In the meantime, I think the summary of public comments is needed for the posting fo further public comment. I am assuming that it is necessary to include the full range of public comments, including those posted earlier and any that occured in the various public forums.

1 0

Procedure for requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry
by Olof Nordling Aug. 4, 2005

Aug. 4, 2005

Dear Council Members, Following last Thursday's Council meeting with a vote that produced a Supermajority Recommendation on the lengthy subject line above, a draft Council Report to Board, as called for by the PDP, is attached for your consideration. Comments, corrections and improvements to this draft Council Report are certainly welcome. A final version is needed for item 3 below. Furthermore, I wish to inform you about the next procedural steps for this Recommendation: 1. The Final Report and all ancillary documents are right now being submitted for information to the Board meeting on 16 August. 2. Before the end of this week, the Final Report will be posted on the ICANN website for a 21-day public comment period, in accordance with Article III, Section 6 of the Bylaws. All SOs and ACs will be notified thereof. 3. The document set will be completed with public comments received, with the aim to submit the Recommendation for final adoption as a consensus policy by the Board at the 13 September ICANN Board meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions on the above. Very best regards Olof Nordling Olof Nordling Manager, Policy Development Coordination ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7870 Mobile: +32.475.420805 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 E-mail: olof.nordling(a)icann.org www.icann.org

2 1

Objectives and Priorities
by Ross Rader Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We all have many initiatives on the go - in our professional lives, personal lives, at a constituency level, within the GNSO, at Council and throughout ICANN in general. I'm starting to find it difficult to prioritize my available Council time, which means that in turn, I'm finding it difficult to work on the objectives that are of immediate importance to the Council and the GNSO. I want to continue to ensure that I devote the limited time that I do have available for ICANN matters to those that are important to my constituency and this Council, but I'm finding it difficult in the current environment. I would like to suggest that we take a quick breather to come up with a list of current objectives and projects, prioritize them and then resume our work with the additional context that a quick re-synchronization will bring. By my count, we have the following projects on the go: - - finish registry services process - - complete substantial WHOIS work - - review new gtld work - - prepare GNSO review terms of reference What am I missing? What priority do we want to assign to each? If I'm alone in this confusion, please excuse the interruption. :) If not, and with our chair's permission, let's try to get through this resync quickly so that we can meet the deadlines that accompany each of our goals. Alternatively, if anyone has any ideas as to how we can otherwise accomplish some priority setting, please share! The outcome is much more important to me than the process we use to reach arrive at the outcome... Much thanks in advance, - -- - -- Regards, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFC8PaA6sL06XjirooRAlnDAJ9i9UKz39j/I6b650KpJ5F60KLi9gCcCkzt pEolvs9L4fJAuIy5PTuXVpY= =uRtF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [council] RE: GNSO Review
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005

Thanks, Liz. I am interested to discuss what and whether other models apply and how they can be extended to ICANN. :we are all familiar with how hard it is to force fit something unique into a Kstandard". Could you perhaps share your ideas on that front? Among the SoO are ind. From so many different "groups" including CENTR, APTLD, ITU, APEC, ISIOC, IETF, W3C, and national societies. It would be useful to discuss how models are understood as regards ICANN. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:22:31 To:"'Grant FORSYTH'" <Grant.Forsyth(a)team.telstraclear.co.nz> Cc:"'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review Thanks Grant. Yes, I have approached all councilors and the two liaisons. I am always happy if people wish to send their responses through the council list. Am also happy to receive direct responses as much to minimize my inbox as anything else! Yes, good suggestion on the purpose of collecting data. I will add that to the equations which are emerging. Yes, there are four initial sections but do feel free to add where you need to. This is a very early phase effort to help us all flush out where we need to be. Yes, on the purpose statement I have called it a rationale and I have added correct references where needed. I will also include, if it helps Council, some other models where this type of review has been done in other industry self-regulatory environments. You may have some specific suggestions here with respect to your experience in the telecoms industry in NZ I cant remember what review was most recently done but perhaps you could advise? Kind regards. Liz From: Grant FORSYTH [mailto:Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:28 PM To: Liz Williams Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: GNSO Review Hi Liz Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the TOR. While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would 'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable responding transparently through Council and would wish that other Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?] other Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency is important to the GNSO. I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another 'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed. I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU). I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review. If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be most useful. In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that you have proposed be the framework for data gathering. (Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?) 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: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44 To: Grant FORSYTH Subject: GNSO Review Grant You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting some initial thoughts and would appreciate your input. Just to recap the timing first. We have to have ready for the VCR Board meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take place in early 2006. The exact timing is yet to be established but, based on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper papers. That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts, first draft and final draft ready. I will prepare a project map in the next couple of days that will include all these critical dates. I will circulate that when we have the early thoughts phase completed. As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to inform the questions which need answering. I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts. Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received. Operational - most objective of the categories. Based on facts and figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types and kinds of meetings. (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed our conversation) Effectiveness -- partly objective/partly subjective. Need to look at time lines for consideration of issues. Need to also consider, once policy is made, is it implemented easily, quickly. What compliance issues are there? What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need for binding contract. Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective. Need to examine relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs. Need to look at internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating positions/views/diversity of opinion). How does work get done; are the existi! ng processes and procedures working and effective. What measures should we use to answer those questions? Need work here on identifying breakages in the system. For example, should there be closer/more supportive/more direct staff intervention? Should there be broader constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms? Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories. Need questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs. Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation, plurality of views, openness of processes. I have been reviewing each of the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course, different! At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of whom I've been able to catch by phone. I will then bring those responses together into a first draft. I am also using this model to seek views from the staff and others. I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks down the track. You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000 Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

RE: GNSO Review
by Grant FORSYTH Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005

Hi Liz Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the TOR. While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would 'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable responding transparently through Council and would wish that other Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?] other Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency is important to the GNSO. I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another 'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed. I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU). I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review. If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be most useful. In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that you have proposed be the framework for data gathering. (Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?) 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: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44 To: Grant FORSYTH Subject: GNSO Review Grant You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting some initial thoughts and would appreciate your input. Just to recap the timing first. We have to have ready for the VCR Board meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take place in early 2006. The exact timing is yet to be established but, based on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper papers. That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts, first draft and final draft ready. I will prepare a project map in the next couple of days that will include all these critical dates. I will circulate that when we have the early thoughts phase completed. As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to inform the questions which need answering. I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts. Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received. 1. Operational - most objective of the categories. Based on facts and figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types and kinds of meetings. (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed our conversation) 2. Effectiveness -- partly objective/partly subjective. Need to look at time lines for consideration of issues. Need to also consider, once policy is made, is it implemented easily, quickly. What compliance issues are there? What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need for binding contract. 3. Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective. Need to examine relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs. Need to look at internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating positions/views/diversity of opinion). How does work get done; are the existing processes and procedures working and effective. What measures should we use to answer those questions? Need work here on identifying breakages in the system. For example, should there be closer/more supportive/more direct staff intervention? Should there be broader constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms? 4. Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories. Need questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs. Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation, plurality of views, openness of processes. I have been reviewing each of the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course, different! At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of whom I've been able to catch by phone. I will then bring those responses together into a first draft. I am also using this model to seek views from the staff and others. I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks down the track. You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000

4 3

RE: [council] Some initial thoughts on GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005

Hello All, Just for clarification, my postings are just personal ideas at this stage to stimulate thinking and discussion, and do not reflect the views of the GNSO Council as yet! They are not intended in any way as directions to staff or Council. Feel free to disagree with anything I say :-) I am following Grant's suggestion to make some comments openly so that others may consider ideas, and help form their own views. We also need to ensure we engage our own constituencies for input. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Collection of factual information for GNSO review
by Bruce Tonkin Aug. 3, 2005

Aug. 3, 2005

Hello All, Here is some factual information to collect as well: - what is the cost for a member to join a each constituency, i.e. membership dues - what is the cost for a member to actively participate in each constituency (e.g is there an expectation to attend physical meetings, make phone calls (sometimes expensive for members in developing countries), or purely contribute via email or web bloggs) - what languages of participation are supported by a particular constituency? - are the discussions amongst members of a constituency open or closed (or perhaps a mixture of the two - if there is a mixture - what is the criteria or process for closed discussions?) - How representative of a particular community is a constituency? Does it comprise mainly of individual members/companies, or is it itself comprised of representation associations (e.g associations of ISPs, business chambers of commerce, internet user societies, computing societies etc). - How do members of a constituency participate in policy development? If there is a significant proportion of members from representative associations - how do some of the more active associations manage participation from their individual members? - how does a constituency form a formal position on a particular topic (e.g is it through a formal voting process (if so, what is that process - quorum requirements, etc), or is it via posting a document for comment and in the absence of dissenting views the document is accepted as the policy position of that constituency)? - how long does it take on average to develop a formal position within each constituency? (e.g it may take time to hold phone conferences, formal votes etc). How do these timeframes compare with the timeframes in the PDP timelines in the current bylaws? Regards, Bruce

1 0

Re: [council] RE: GNSO Review
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 2, 2005

Aug. 2, 2005

Thanks, Mike. Yes, it does seem like a lot of work, but work that the SO will drive, as one would expect from ICANN's commitment to bottom up processes. I am sure there will be many opportunities to benefit from the supportive role of the staff and the board as we "pioneer". While we may set the standard, we will also probably need to remember that "pioneers" sometimes have learning experiences that others bebefit from, but may also be viewed as trying different approaches before finding a working formula.. Regards, Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael(a)palage.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:00:02 To:<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] RE: GNSO Review Grant: Let me applaud you for your commitment to the open and transparent principles upon which ICANN are founded. I would also like to commend Council for its efforts in connection with the first portion of this review process which was conducted last year, and which led to the revision of the ICANN bylaws recognizing three council representatives per constituency on a permanent basis. Although I will defer to council and staff to conduct their work on this second portion of the review process, I would like to remind all parties involved that this represents ICANN's first attempt under Article IV, Section 4 of the ICANN bylaws to conduct a periodic review of ICANN's structure and operation. Therefore, the GNSO will be setting the standard by which other Supporting Organizations (ASO, CCNSO) and other structures (ALAC, Non-Com, etc) will be evaluated. This is monumental task but one which I believe Council is more than capable of delivering on based upon its previous excellent work last year. Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Grant FORSYTH Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:28 PM To: Liz Williams Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review Hi Liz Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the TOR. While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would 'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable responding transparently through Council and would wish that other Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?] other Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency is important to the GNSO. I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another 'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed. I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values (eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU). I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review. If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be most useful. In the mean time, I will give further thought to the other dimensions that you have proposed be the framework for data gathering. (Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?) 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: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44 To: Grant FORSYTH Subject: GNSO Review Grant You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting some initial thoughts and would appreciate your input. Just to recap the timing first. We have to have ready for the VCR Board meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take place in early 2006. The exact timing is yet to be established but, based on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper papers. That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts, first draft and final draft ready. I will prepare a project map in the next couple of days that will include all these critical dates. I will circulate that when we have the early thoughts phase completed. As you know, the review is required by the by-laws and the LUX board resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to inform the questions which need answering. I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts. Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received. Operational - most objective of the categories. Based on facts and figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types and kinds of meetings. (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed our conversation) Effectiveness -- partly objective/partly subjective. Need to look at time lines for consideration of issues. Need to also consider, once policy is made, is it implemented easily, quickly. What compliance issues are there? What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need for binding contract. Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective. Need to examine relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs. Need to look at internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating positions/views/diversity of opinion). How does work get done; are the existing processes and procedures working and effective. What measures should we use to answer those questions? Need work here on identifying breakages in the system. For example, should there be closer/more supportive/more direct staff intervention? Should there be broader constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms? Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories. Need questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs. Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable. I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation, plurality of views, openness of processes. I have been reviewing each of the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course, different! At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of whom I've been able to catch by phone. I will then bring those responses together into a first draft. I am also using this model to seek views from the staff and others. I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks down the track. You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000 Regards, Marilyn Cade

1 0

[Fwd: Meeting in Paris - Wednesday evening (August 3rd)]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Aug. 2, 2005

Aug. 2, 2005

Forwarded from Tina Dam -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Meeting in Paris - Wednesday evening (August 3rd) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 07:08:31 -0700 From: Tina Dam <dam(a)icann.org> To: 'Glen De Saint Gery' <glen(a)icann.org> Hi Glen, will you pass this note on to the GNSO Council. As mentioned at the last Council meeting, several council reps and constituency members are participating in the IETF meeting, currently ongoing in Paris. In the last couple of days a couple of IDN meetings have been taking place among specific groups. In order to make sure that everyone present with IDN interest are coordinated and updated on the ongoing discussions an open meeting has been planned for Wednesday evening. We will simply find a bar/café immediately after the public forum Wednesday evening, so please send me a note or find me at the convention center and join in. Best, Tina Tina Dam Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN Office: +1-310-301-5838 Cell: +1-310-862-2026 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0