January 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board Call
by michael＠palage.com Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Hello All: I have received a number of inquiries from people regarding Monday's ICANN Board teleconference. What I can tell you is that the Board met and we received a briefing from staff regarding negotiations since the Vancouver meeting, and that there is likely to be a statement regarding these negotiations in the next few days. Unfortunately I was dropped from the call with approximately 20 minutes left in the teleconference and was unable to rejoin prior to the conclusion of the call. I hope the council found this update informative. Best regards, Michael

1 0

Further input as requested on proposed meeting for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Ken Stubbs Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:00 -0500 From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs(a)afilias.info> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Bruce... the 21st of February would be a very difficult date to make as the previous week is the IGF (internet governance forum) in Geneve and many of us will be tied up in this as well as other related forums for most of the week ending the 17th. this would mean that many people would have to take additional time the following week away (i.e. 2 weeks in a row) from their respective offices. there is also a major telephony conference in barcelona the week preceeding the 21st whch some may be attending as well.. I would propose the 27th & 28th of February as good alternative dates.. a meeting in that week would still allow adequate time for preparation (i.e. one full month) for wellington. Ken Stubbs Bruce Tonkin wrote: >Hello All, > >The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the agenda >for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. > >However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making >arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. > >Purpose of meeting >================== >- using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - carry out >further drafting work on a policy position >- if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues >identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - carry >out further work to complete constituency position statements and begin >to draft proposed policies >- provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the >reports published so far > >Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, a >physical meeting may assist progress. > > >Location of meeting >=================== >- the Washington region has several major gtld registries and registrars >- it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere >- we have local contacts that can assist with logistics > > >Planning so far >=============== >- current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 >- locations under consideration include > -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself > -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington > > >A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further public >comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage with >respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new gtlds. >Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. > >A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper in >terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find available >accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location for the >planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may be >able to host a drafting meeting. > >It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g one >morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the time near >the airport. > > >Participation >============ >- given that many Council members will be planning to attend the ICANN >meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time or >budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each >constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be >Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in >Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members within >a reasonable radius of Washington. > > >Further input needed >===================== > >I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues around >the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes with >other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences >regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the city >itself. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Interesting Reading...
by Sophia B Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Should World Make Room For Another Wide Web?January 22, 2006 By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS, Wall Street Journa The root is coordinated by a private, nonprofit group in Marina del Rey, Calif., called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann. ... < http://www.courant.com/business/hc-wsjinternet.artjan22,0,4344057.story?col… > -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele(a)gmail.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com

1 0

RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Bruce and Ross, Thanks Bruce for bringing this proposal forward. I too think this is an excellent idea, and Ross, I agree with your further analysis. In particular, I agree that the GNSO council should move ahead with a conflict of interest policy, and an appropriate process to accompany it. As you know, this is an issue that I brought up at the meeting in Vancouver, at which time I cited the Board conflict of interest policy and asked for clarification as to whether or not it applied to the Council. Now that we have our clarification, we should move ahead. I like your" light weight" approach and also the concept of a design committee. I support the idea of adding this to the next agenda, so Bruce, if that is acceptable and if the Council as a whole agrees to proceed, I would be pleased to volunteer to work with fellow Councillors on the proposed "design committee" or with whatever development approach is decided upon. Best regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:57 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest Bruce Tonkin wrote: > I see this being a voluntary initiative as there doesn't seem to be any > explicit bylaw requirements. Bruce - I think this is an excellent proposal. As you know, the registrar constituency has had similar practices embodied in its bylaws for a number of years. However, simply because the bylaws is silent on a specific set of behaviors, doesn't mean that we can't officially adopt these behaviors through other means. I also believe that it is time for the Council of the GNSO to adopt some explicit conflict of interest management processes - but I believe they should be mandatory. At first, we should proceed cautiously with these. A light-weight approach would seem to be most prudent. Over time, we could improve and expand upon the approach in ways that make it more useful for our purposes. My preference would not be to create a "design committee" to come up with a comprehensive proposal at this time. As a first step, I think your proposal makes eminent sense, and I would like to discuss whether or not the rest of the council would be willing to undertake a vote to make these requirements mandatory. Is this something that we could add to the agenda of our next meeting? Thanks in advance for your consideration. -ross

10 16

CHANGE DATE: Draft2 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Monday 6 February 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Hello All, As a couple of Council members have requested the meeting be a day earlier to avoid clashes with other commitments, I have moved the meeting forward one day. I have also added the topic of "Statements of interest" to the end of the agenda. Regards, Bruce -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:19 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Tuesday 7 February 2006 Hello All, In view of the need to keep the work going on the topic of policy issues arising from the proposed changes to the .com agreement, as well as the work on new gTLDs, I recommend that we schedule another conference call following receipt of the Issues Report, and following the conclusion of the period for constituency statements on new gTLDS. Draft Agenda for Council meeting Monday 6 February 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 17 January 2006 Item 2: Issues Report on policy issues raised in the proposed .com agreement - consider the issues report (due 1 Feb 2006) - decide whether to initiate the PDP (see "Initiation of PDP" in section 3, Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 3: Initial Report on new gTLDs - consider cosnsitutency statements and public comments (due 31 Jan 2006) - discuss content of Initial Report (due on 15 Feb 2006) (see section 8 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 4: Next meeting - 21 Feb 2006 - Consider holding a two day physical meeting around 21 Feb 2006 in Washington, DC to advance the work on policy issues in items 2 and 3 above - note the Final Report on new gTLDs is due on 15 March 2006 (see section 9 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 5: Statements of interest Item 6: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest
by Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Thanks Michael. I have just been in touch with the current CIRA Chair, Clyde Beattie, and he advises me that there are some proposed changes to CIRA's Bylaw #1, which will be brought forward at a special members' meeting in Toronto next week, and which might result in some changes to the COI policy. I plan to be at the meeting, and will review the proposed changes prior to that. I will post to this list if there are any changes of substance that might be of interest to Council as we continue this discussion on Interest/Conflict. Best regards, Maureen ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:30 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest Maureen: Thanks for the reference to this document, I found it very informative, see http://www.cira.ca/official-doc/16.Conflict_of_Interest_Policy.pdf Best regards. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Cubberley Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:44 PM To: Marilyn Cade; 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)'; ross(a)tucows.com; 'Bruce Tonkin' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest During my CIRA Chair days, we developed a conflict of interest policy, with the assistance of one of the country's leading legal firms. Ross, would CIRA be willing to share its policy with the Council? Maureen ----- Original Message ----- From: Marilyn Cade <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: 'Cubberley, Maureen (CHT)' <mailto:MCubberley@gov.mb.ca> ; ross(a)tucows.com ; 'Bruce Tonkin' <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest I'm also interested in supporting the development of an effective Interest Statement, and a discussion of what creates a conflict that requires a recusement, versus a disclosure. Also, we should examine how we implement such a program. Grant has shared with the BC the way that InternetNZ addresses, and perhaps there are other useful models also about to quickly get a sense of. Marilyn -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:04 AM To: ross(a)tucows.com; Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Conflicts of Interest Bruce and Ross, Thanks Bruce for bringing this proposal forward. I too think this is an excellent idea, and Ross, I agree with your further analysis. In particular, I agree that the GNSO council should move ahead with a conflict of interest policy, and an appropriate process to accompany it. As you know, this is an issue that I brought up at the meeting in Vancouver, at which time I cited the Board conflict of interest policy and asked for clarification as to whether or not it applied to the Council. Now that we have our clarification, we should move ahead. I like your" light weight" approach and also the concept of a design committee. I support the idea of adding this to the next agenda, so Bruce, if that is acceptable and if the Council as a whole agrees to proceed, I would be pleased to volunteer to work with fellow Councillors on the proposed "design committee" or with whatever development approach is decided upon. Best regards, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:57 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Conflicts of Interest Bruce Tonkin wrote: > I see this being a voluntary initiative as there doesn't seem to be any > explicit bylaw requirements. Bruce - I think this is an excellent proposal. As you know, the registrar constituency has had similar practices embodied in its bylaws for a number of years. However, simply because the bylaws is silent on a specific set of behaviors, doesn't mean that we can't officially adopt these behaviors through other means. I also believe that it is time for the Council of the GNSO to adopt some explicit conflict of interest management processes - but I believe they should be mandatory. At first, we should proceed cautiously with these. A light-weight approach would seem to be most prudent. Over time, we could improve and expand upon the approach in ways that make it more useful for our purposes. My preference would not be to create a "design committee" to come up with a comprehensive proposal at this time. As a first step, I think your proposal makes eminent sense, and I would like to discuss whether or not the rest of the council would be willing to undertake a vote to make these requirements mandatory. Is this something that we could add to the agenda of our next meeting? Thanks in advance for your consideration. -ross

1 0

Wellington meetings - Arrival and departure dates
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, If you have not already informed me, could you please let me have your arrival and departure dates for the Wellington meetings by the end of this week 27 January 2006. Please address these to me at gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org and do not use the council list. Thank you very much, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Statement of Interests for Tom Keller
by Thomas Keller Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

To follow the lead of Bruce here my statement of interest I'm a fulltime employee of Schlund+Partner AG. Schlund+Partner AG is ICANN accredited and is conducting business with almost all major gTLDS and ccTLDs. Schlund holds a minority share in Afilias LLC for investment purposes.Besides domain name registrations Schlund is mainly offering wehosting and email services to end users. I'm a member of the DENIC Technical Advisory Council. Best, tom

1 0

RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Tuesday 7 February 2006
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

I could make Monday 1/6, but not Tuesday as I'll be involved in an ETSI meeting that evening. Can't speak for the other ISPCP members, both are away on holiday at the moment. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: 20 January 2006 21:06 To: 'Thomas Keller'; 'Bruce Tonkin' Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Tuesday 7 February 2006 I'm reluctant to move it farther out. How about Monday? 1/6? -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:26 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Tuesday 7 February 2006 Bruce, holding a additional meeting (or even more than one) is certainly a good idea but having it on the same day as the start of the .eu Sunrise 2 might prevent me from participating. Could we reschedule this meeting to another day? Best, tom Am 20.01.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin: > Hello All, > > In view of the need to keep the work going on the topic of policy issues > arising from the proposed changes to the .com agreement, as well as the > work on new gTLDs, I recommend that we schedule another conference call > following receipt of the Issues Report, and following the conclusion of > the period for constituency statements on new gTLDS. > > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 7 February 2006 > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 > > (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) > Melbourne ) > > Item 1: Approval of minutes of 17 January 2006 > > Item 2: Issues Report on policy issues raised in the proposed .com > agreement > - consider the issues report (due 1 Feb 2006) > - decide whether to initiate the PDP > (see "Initiation of PDP" in section 3, Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) > > Item 3: Initial Report on new gTLDs > - consider cosnsitutency statements and public comments (due 31 Jan > 2006) > - discuss content of Initial Report (due on 15 Feb 2006) > (see section 8 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) > > Item 4: Next meeting - 21 Feb 2006 > - Consider holding a two day physical meeting around 21 Feb 2006 in > Washington, DC to advance the work on policy issues in items 2 and 3 > above > - note the Final Report on new gTLDs is due on 15 March 2006 > (see section 9 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) > > Item 5: Any other business > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

1 0

Draft Agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Tuesday 7 February 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

Hello All, In view of the need to keep the work going on the topic of policy issues arising from the proposed changes to the .com agreement, as well as the work on new gTLDs, I recommend that we schedule another conference call following receipt of the Issues Report, and following the conclusion of the period for constituency statements on new gTLDS. Draft Agenda for Council meeting Tuesday 7 February 2006 Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes of 17 January 2006 Item 2: Issues Report on policy issues raised in the proposed .com agreement - consider the issues report (due 1 Feb 2006) - decide whether to initiate the PDP (see "Initiation of PDP" in section 3, Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 3: Initial Report on new gTLDs - consider cosnsitutency statements and public comments (due 31 Jan 2006) - discuss content of Initial Report (due on 15 Feb 2006) (see section 8 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 4: Next meeting - 21 Feb 2006 - Consider holding a two day physical meeting around 21 Feb 2006 in Washington, DC to advance the work on policy issues in items 2 and 3 above - note the Final Report on new gTLDs is due on 15 March 2006 (see section 9 (c), Annex A, of the ICANN bylaws) Item 5: Any other business Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 3